Comment by zelphirkalt

Comment by zelphirkalt 3 days ago

29 replies

View on Hacker News

Only recently again I read in the newspaper, that most products are overdosed. There is a typical number that the vitamin D products usually show, and in the article it said, that only up to 800 IU is safe, and everything above is an overdose. There are many products out there with 2000 UI or maybe even more. Beware.

EDIT: Wow, the HN-local doctors at it again. Imagine getting downvoted for sharing information from newspaper article (and honestly labeling that info as such), that probably was written by someone consulting medical professionals. But hey HN will know better!

lynx97 3 days ago

Before I take medical advice from a newspaper, I might as well ask my local esoteric nut.

Reply View 0 replies
krona 3 days ago

Being at the beach (in summer) for a half an hour will produce 10,000 and 25,000 IU for the average european.

See: Vitamin D and health: evolution, biologic functions, and recommended dietary intakes for vitamin D (293 citations)

Reply View 7 replies
  • SoKamil 3 days ago

    Could you cite that claim from the paper?

    Reply View 3 replies
    • poizan42 3 days ago

      Not OP, but the paper says on page 8

      > An adult in a bathing suit exposed to 1 minimal erythemal dose of ultraviolet radiation (a slight pinkness to the skin 24 h after exposure) was found to be equivalent to ingesting between 10,000 and 25,000 IU of vitamin D (Fig. 6).

      Doesn't say 30 minutes, but it may be 30 minutes depending on your skin colour and the local strength of the sun.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • zelphirkalt 3 days ago

        I think the OP's interpretation of this is wrong. Just because someone was found to have an equivalent of ingesting so and so much, after UV radiation, doesn't automatically imply that it a good idea to ingest any amount of vitamin D. Ingestion is different from exposing skin to UV/sun. The paper probably doesn't state, that ingesting that much will make a person absorb that much from that ingestion, nor does it state, that ingesting some equivalent amount will be safe and without side-effects.

        So the paper may be well researched or whatever, but the interpretation of it is questionable.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • poizan42 3 days ago

          I can't make any assesment on the quality of the paper as that is far outside my expertise, but as far as I can tell from a quick skim it does indeed make the claim that recommendations for supplements should be significantly increased.

          From the abstract:

          > The safe upper limit for children can easily be increased to 2,000 IU of vitamin D/day, and for adults, up to 10,000 IU of vitamin D/day has been shown to be safe. The goal of this chapter is to give a broad perspective about vitamin D and to introduce the reader to the vitamin D deficiency pandemic and its insidious consequences on health that will be reviewed in more detail in the ensuing chapters

          The full article is available on researchgate[1]. Direct link to PDF [2].

          [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226676251_Vitamin_D...

          [2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Holick/publicat...

          EDIT: I just looked up the author, Michael F. Holick. Apparently he is one the people who identified calcitriol in 1971. I know appeal to authority doesn't prove anything, but it might be prudent to at least consider his findings.

          Reply View 0 replies
  • zelphirkalt 3 days ago

    So? What's your claim here? Are you claiming that our skin works the same way as our digestive system? That would be a ridiculous claim. And fyi, many people get a proper sunburn, if they stayed in the sun for 30 min straight without protection, at least in summer. So your 30 min statistic doesn't really tell us anything about something being healthy or not.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • krona 3 days ago

      I've given you everything you need to find out for yourself. Your incredulity on this is a self-confession.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • zelphirkalt 3 days ago

        What you have given is rather a comparison, that doesn't stand up even the slightest scrutiny, and an improper citation. I am not gonna read a whole paper on a whim. Cite properly, with proper hyperlink, and at least a page number, and I will consider looking at it.

        Reply View 0 replies
Ensorceled 3 days ago

Can you provide a link to the newspaper article at least while whining about the downvotes?

Reply View 3 replies
  • zelphirkalt 3 days ago

    I would like to, but I cannot, since it is a region-local newspaper that comes as actual paper, that only has a paid online offer, to which I have no access, nor could I post a link to that. If I went through recent paper form newspaper, I could get a photo of the text in German, but then I would (A) need to spend that time, and (B) need a place to upload pictures, without having to make an account, and only then get back to you with a link. To be honest, I am too lazy to do that, just to justify a comment on HN.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • Ensorceled 3 days ago

      Understandable, but you wrote all of that and you still haven't even named the newspaper.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • freedomben 3 days ago

      That's not unreasonable, but then you also didn't really "cite" your source. Even without photographing the paper, giving the name of it, article title, or author would go a long way.

      I think the downvotes are harsh btw and in general HNers have gotten too reflexively downvoting IMHO.

      Reply View 0 replies
[removed] 3 days ago
[deleted]
Reply View 0 replies
weird-eye-issue 3 days ago

Misinformation. Do more research.

Reply View 13 replies
  • AndrewDucker 3 days ago

    If you have useful information to share, please do so. Telling people "Do more research" adds nothing to the conversation.

    Reply View 2 replies
  • spoiler 3 days ago

    While (I think) I agree with you on the facts here, I don't think this type of dismissive comments are that useful either.

    Can you give the replyee some pointers, for example? Link to articles or studies that show a different view?

    Reply View 8 replies
    • weird-eye-issue 3 days ago

      Just Google it. There's tons of research on this so I don't know why I need to provide a specific link when this is common knowledge.

      But also here is something to think about: your body will produce more D3 than that by being in the sun for just several minutes. So if you consider such a low dose of D3 an overdose then you better steer clear of the sun!

      Reply View 7 replies
      • zelphirkalt 3 days ago

        > But also here is something to think about: your body will produce more D3 than that by being in the sun for just several minutes. So if you consider such a low dose of D3 an overdose then you better steer clear of the sun!

        This is another superficial statement, that displays shallow-at-best understanding. Staying in the sun and producing via the skin, and intake via food are 2 separate pathways. You cannot just make wild assumptions about one of those pathways from stuff you know about the other pathway.

        And actually: Yes, you shouldn't stay in the sun for too long without proper protection. Having the sun shine on your skin is not some inherently healthy thing. It too comes with acceptable dosage and overdose. Symptoms of overdose are commonly known as getting a sunburn.

        Reply View 1 reply
      • johnisgood 3 days ago

        The problem with "Just Google it" that you can find a lot of bullshit on this.

        Reply View 4 replies