The Big Vitamin D Mistake - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/ <comment> King-Aaron Anecdotally, I had this discussion with a cardiovascular interventionist specialist about seven or eight years ago when I was managing a team of cardio theatre orderlies in a private hospital. He made the comment, "mark my words, in about five to ten years time there will be a major scare about needing to absorb more vitamin D".

His opinion was that the increase in sunscreen usage and the push to avoid skin cancer by staying covered up was likely to blame. I find it interesting when articles such as this pop up, because it directly reflects his concerns from those years ago.

For reference, this was the late Dr Geoffrey Mews (who I only just realised has passed on while I was looking for a reference to post. That's made me a bit sad now)

<comment><USER2> The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/)

<comment><USER3> > One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin.

I think this must be cultural. Certainly in my experience in the United States, the lust is for tanned skin. There are even tanning salons, where one can lie down in a machine which floods one's skin with UV.

Now, I _personally_ love fair skin, and have never understood why others seem to love a tan so much.

<comment><USER4> It's a cultural thing, and directly related to wealth (or class, if you prefer).

If most people work outside for a living, then the sign of wealth is that you don't have a tan. If most people work in offices, then the sign of wealth is that you have a tan, implying that you went on vacation or otherwise have the available leisure time.

When most people do manual labor, having impractically long fingernails demonstrates that you don't have to do that.

When most people have two or three sets of clothing, changing clothes several times a day demonstrates your wealth.

When most people eat a subsistence diet, being fat is demonstrating wealth. when most people eat fast food, being thin demonstrates your superior resources.

If most people need to pay attention to what they are wearing at their jobs, dressing in a way which signals that you don't have to pay attention is a status marker.

If everybody drives a car, picking an unusual vehicle can be a status marker. What's the difference between a Chevy Silverado 2-door and a Ford F-150 SVT Raptor? They demonstrate different spending priorities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Related to this topic, if you have IBS/IBD, some interesting research been coming out in the last couple of years indicating that low vitamin D may play a role in this issue as well. This [1] 2015 study found 82% of people with IBS had low vitamin D levels relative to 31% in the control group. This [2] 2016 one _proved causation_ of vitamin D supplementation improving symptoms, by randomly splitting into two groups and treating only one. This [3] speculative writeup by the Vitamin D Council in 2014 discusses some possible mechanisms of action.

This seems like such low-hanging fruit that it was extremely surprising to me that this is at the cutting edge. Causes and cures for IBS are not clear and one third of patients find current treatments unsuccessful [4]. But the above doesn't seem to be well known in online discussion because it's so new, and my gastroenterologist didn't bring it up at all either.

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412886/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412886/)

[2] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154424](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154424)

[3] [https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health- conditions/inflammato...](https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health- conditions/inflammatory-bowel-disease/)

[4] [https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/study-finds-high-dose- vitami...](https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/study-finds-high-dose-vitamin-d- supplementation-significantly-improves-irritable-bowel-syndrome/)

<comment><USER6> Anecdotal: I have Chrohns and take 2000 UI Vitamin D everyday. I've been prescribed the lowest dosage anti-inflammatory (Mesalamine) for years and rarely had a flare up. My Vitamin D blood tests always come back in the normal level.

<comment><USER7> Another anecdote... I also take mesalamine (as Delzicol in my case), and take 3000 IU of Vitamin D (along with supplements of calcium, B-complex, and some others). I almost never have flares.

However, I can't get a good colonoscopy - my GI doc says the prep is always bad, even if I extend it for an additional day. He attributes that to a chronic simmering inflammatory state preventing things from cleaning out well. That puts me at a much higher risk of colon cancer, and so I'm also doing Entyvio infusions prophylactically.

<comment><USER8> Have you tried going to a different doctor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article seems to be a low quality review of other research with a clickbatey title (full text here: [https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3961/jpmph.16....](https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3961/jpmph.16.111)).

Pubmed is sort of like arxiv.org and the fact this has an nih.gov base url should not be taken as an endorsement of it by the NIH.

That said I do actually believe that more then the recommended amount of vitamin D can be beneficial and the recommendations are in need of reevaluation.

<comment><USER10> Just to back this up: the journal it's published in has a very very low impact factor of 0.235 (i.e. it publishes 4x more papers that it gets citations, probably most of it's papers are never cited by anyone) [1]. If this paper was considered a big a deal by the wider research community you would expect it to be published in a high profile journal.

[1]: [https://journal.komci.org/ViewJournalInfo.php?JID=109#Impact...](https://journal.komci.org/ViewJournalInfo.php?JID=109#ImpactFactor)

<comment><USER11> Do you know why this is the case? Is there some flaw in their methodology?

<comment><USER12> Good question! The scientific method does not include references to "impact factor" :)

<comment><USER13> I mean, it does. The "fairy tale" that one hears in high school doesn't, but we put aside fairy tales when we became adults.

If you are done with the "undergrad level" of Popper and Kuhn it is worth reading Imre Lakatos's work on philosophy of science. It contains a moment where one realizes that research programs live or die by this "impact factor" and that this living or dying is a key part of the overall methodology of science. The gist is that science is actually participating in a survival-of- the-fittest evolution with certain foundational ideas as the "genes" which "reproduce". So scientific ideas are actually good or bad in no small part due to their ability to create further scientific research along similar lines. A low impact-factor therefore directly says "along this particularly important- to-science axis, this journal sucks."

<comment><USER14> But to stretch the analogy a bit further would it be fair to say that impact factor is very like sexual selection for extreme display traits that otherwise are detrimental to the wellbeing of the species?

Yes impact factor matters to current science as practiced but there is plenty of good criticism to show (at least as it is currently calculated) that it is a lousy measure of what is likely to end up being true, reproducible and useful.

<comment><USER15> _> would it be fair to say that impact factor is very like sexual selection for extreme display traits that otherwise are detrimental to the wellbeing of the species?_

If I read every PoS article vaguely related to my research, I'd never get anything done. In practice, I don't pay attention to impact factor. But I do pay attention to who's publishing. And that's basically the same as impact factor, in practice.

 _> that it is a lousy measure of what is likely to end up being true, reproducible and useful._

I don't think so.

High impact factor publications are _MUCH_ more likely to be quality science than low impact factor publications (at least in my area).

The major venues would have to get at least two orders of magnitude worse before they became bad indicators of quality.

Of course, and obviously, that does not entail that all work published in high impact factor journals is high-quality.

I think the fundamental problem is just that you vastly under-estimate the enormous volume of utter crap there is out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This supports my lived experience. Found to be incredibly low in vitamin D, and diagnosed with autoimmune thyroiditis. Doctor said to supplement with 2000 IU being the max per day.

After seeing no improvement whatsoever in vitamin D levels, and after talking with others with the same issue, I self medicated to 10000 IU / day.

Lo and behold my vitamin D levels went back up and my auto-antibodies went back down.

<comment><USER17> This is similar to my lived experience. I was diagnosed with Hashimoto's 3 years ago. I was lucky to find a great doctor that specialized in it. He put me on 15000 IU / day for 3 months because I was so severely low in addition to having high antibodies. Within 3 months my levels were so much better. I still take 10000 IU / day along with selenium, iron, fish oil and good diet/exercise and all my levels have been in check for 2 years :)

<comment><USER18> Could you write a bit about the role of selenium in your treatment? Thanks.

<comment><USER17> Sorry just now saw this. The article here goes into things pretty well for my situation at least [http://www.lifeextension.com/protocols/metabolic- health/thyr...](http://www.lifeextension.com/protocols/metabolic- health/thyroid-regulation/Page-08)

I don't want to give any kind of medical advice especially without knowing the situation of others. If you are concerned though, it doesn't hurt to get blood work done. Following are the common things to test for if you think you may have Hashimoto's or thyroid issues.

Vit D, Ferritin, Thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPO), Thyroglobulin antibody (TGAb), Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), Free T4 Test

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Could someone help me understand this?

>it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L. Another study confirmed that 6201 IU/d was needed to achieve 75 nmol/L and 9122 IU/d was needed to reach 100 nmol/L. The largest meta-analysis ever conducted of studies published between 1966 and 2013 showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <75 nmol/L may be too low for safety and associated with higher all-cause mortality, demolishing the previously presumed U-shape curve of mortality associated with vitamin D levels.

What is IU/d? What is nmol/L? Could someone ELI5 the entire abstract for me? Well, maybe a little more than 5, I get that there was an error estimating recommended levels and we're not getting enough.

<comment><USER20> The generally accepted goal by both the researchers and the US RDA is to reach 50-75 nmol/L blood levels, using however many IU that takes.

IU/d is "IU per day of Vitamin D", and nmol/L is "nmol per liter of blood". Vitamin D is measured in IU rather than grams like most other supplements for medical reasons I'm not familiar with. nmol is an unfamiliar unit, but I can help clarify why this paper is so stunning anyways.

[https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD- HealthProfessiona...](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD- HealthProfessional/) is a summary of the NIH's position on Vitamin D for US citizens. The research linked by this post differs in two key ways, approximately:

First, "<75 nmol/L may be too low for safety", vs. the NIH statement ">50 nmol/L generally considered adequate" (for adults).

Second, "8895 IU was needed to reach >50 nmol/L", vs. the NIH statement "600 IU sufficient with minimal sun exposure" (for adults).

So, in summary, for healthy adults, they assert that 10-20x the current RDA- indicated IU of vitamin D consumption is necessary to achieve the recommended blood saturation level of 50-75 nmol/L in all adults.

Two notes: These precise figures are for grown adults, NOT children; and, I strongly encourage getting a vitamin D blood test before starting or modifying your vitamin D supplement intake, especially if attempting to reach the 15x RDA levels described here.

<comment><USER21> IU are used whenever a particular vitamin has multiple forms with varying levels of efficacy [0]. Or it may be used when the typical quantities are measured in inconveniently small units.

1 IU of cholecalciferol is 0.025 micrograms. If you supplement vitamin D at hogh doses, make sure you use cholecalciferol rather than ergocalciferol. The former is naturally synthesized in your own skin, whereas the latter is produced mainly in mushrooms, and can result in unpleasant side effects. Maximum-dose recommendations from nutritionists may include the assumption that the consumer does not know the difference, therefore reflect the highest safe dose of the least-safe vitamer.

It is similar to the issues with vitamin A, when someone may safely supplement with carotenes and unsafely supplement with retinol. You can eat sweet potato and carrots until you turn orange, but you cannot eat a single bite of polar bear liver. But because we are mostly idiots, nutritionists cannot recommend a high-dose supplement for vitamin A, with carotene in mind, because someone will inevitably overdose themselves with retinol. So if you can certify yourself as not-a-moron, you will be able to figure out when those recommendations may be safely ignored.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamer)

<comment><USER22> Where can one go to learn about different forms of vitamins and the safe&recommended doses for each?

<comment><USER20> The other reply to your comment is entirely valid and I encourage you to read it in full.

That said, the only way to measure a safe dose of a vitamin is to perform medical tests before and during a dosing regimen to ensure that you are neither under nor over the target levels of the vitamin in your body.

Medical science is not yet reliable when it comes to defining target levels of vitamins in any individual's body.

In general, for all body dosing regimens, the goal is to survive the dosing changes without dying _first_ , and to produce the desired result _second_. If you are not treating a specific symptom and instead wish to simply calibrate your blood levels to "optimum", be warned: There is no optimum, period full stop.

For example, if you increase your vitamin D levels precisely to a target amount with careful blood testing and supplement regimes, then your risk of death from sunlight exposure may increase if/when the levels of sunlight you're exposed to shift significantly (due to work, weather, or travel). Some will immediately object that the increase in risk is vanishingly small. You are irreplaceable. What level of risk of death of acceptable to you?

Soylent calibrates their food product to 100% of all doses specified by the US RDA for healthy adults. It's generally assumed to be a safe set of targets, though some would say that it is too low in many respects (while missing the bigger picture of the 'pick one' conflict between society-level dosing and individual-specific dosing), and others would say that it is too high in many respects (while missing the bigger picture of the 'pick one' conflict between increased risk of side effects vs. increased risk of malnutrition).

There's a good reason why everyone ends up at the same sentence, and I'm going to provide it now:

Seek advice from a medical professional before consuming supplements. If you are unwilling to do so, get a med-alert bracelet and keep a summary of the past year of dosing changes in your wallet. It may someday save your life. If you are unwilling to wear a med-alert bracelet and keep a log of your self- alteration efforts, consciously accept that you risk death if unintended consequences occur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I have been taking 5000IU Vitamin D for the past 7 years, with a little more over the winter months. It's stupidly cheap, I get 360 5000IU capsules for $13, so it has cost me less than $100 over that period.

Anecdotally, it was a game changer for me personally. I got less sick during the winter, and my overall wellbeing improved greatly.

A word of advice, increase Vitamin K intake aswell. Vitamin D helps calcium absorption, but Vitamin K directs it to where it needs to go (skeleton).

<comment><USER24> Word of advice: don't take vitamins ADEK without advice from a physician for extended periods or in high doses. These are fat soluble so you can have too much of them.

<comment><USER25> This should be reiterated: Please consult a professional before drastically altering the chemical composition of your ephemeral body.

I know it sounds downright crazy, but it's possible that someone who's studied medicine and practiced it for years, actually knows better than random anonymous forum users.

<comment><USER26> >>I know it sounds downright crazy, but it's possible that someone who's studied medicine and practiced it for years, actually knows better than random anonymous forum users.

As the link in the OP actually denotes, no, that's not always the case.

Bodybuilders and performance trainers - as well as Soviet Union sports scientists - have known for decades that Vitamin D supplementation is vital. This has been rejected by a significant number of general practitioners and other medical experts who are and were anti-supplement simply out of rote thinking.

Yes, people should be tested for their levels. But this simply isn't feasible for poor people, and telling them to get serum tests for Vitamin D before taking a lower-bound amount of the cheap supplement from the grocery store is ridiculous.

<comment><USER27> I don't think that the drug regimes of the Soviet Olympic Teams should be held up as a good example to follow - a lot of damage was done to a lot of people. On a related note, the Russian team just got banned for trying that crap again.

[http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/news/russia-banned- from-2...](http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/news/russia-banned- from-2018-winter-olympics-over-doping-scandal-w513380)

<comment><USER28> That was mostly political decision, many American/Norwegian/... are legally taking performance enhancing drugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Has anyone had experience ordering blood work (e.g. the vitamin d 25 hydroxy test) without visiting a doctor? I've seen very few references to the set of sites that pop up first online [0, 1, 2, 3] when I've gone looking for reviews in the past. Any suggestions? I'm in CA.

[0]: [https://www.privatemdlabs.com](https://www.privatemdlabs.com) [1]: [http://www.directlabs.com/](http://www.directlabs.com/) [2]: [https://www.walkinlab.com/](https://www.walkinlab.com/) [3]: [https://www.health-tests-direct.com/](https://www.health-tests-direct.com/)

<comment><USER30> In case you have a health insurance - many plans provide a free yearly preventive care doctor visit, which include basic blood lab work. I took advantage of it many times with different insurance companies.

<comment><USER31> I'm not sure it applies to US where Health Insurance is rather russian roulette when you need coverage. Not sure about Aetna, but BlueCross is pretty clear: "BCBSNC will provide coverage for testing serum vitamin D levels when it is determined to be medically necessary because the medical criteria and guidelines noted below are met." [https://www.bcbsnc.com/assets/services/public/pdfs/medicalpo...](https://www.bcbsnc.com/assets/services/public/pdfs/medicalpolicy/testing_serum_vitamin_d_levels.pdf)

I just recently have been struggling with coverage of Vitamin D test for kid with Celiac.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Throwing in my two cents. I used to suffer from seasonal mood swings, since taking a daily multivitamin this has been the best winter of my life.

<comment><USER33> I've been tracking my depression for a few years now, and I'm amazed at the number of things that can trigger a depressive episode. I used to think I had a disease called depression, but it now appears that I had arrived at a collection of various life circumstances that made experiencing depression on any given day more likely for me.

Some of the main triggers have been:

\- Attempting to proceed without a plan

\- Pushing for more productivity when less is called for (New year's resolutions were a great example personally)

\- Bad sleep (I now use the calculator at sleepyti.me and have had great results)

\- Too much exercise without rest days

\- Too much exposure to social experience

\- Too few dopamine-injecting experiences (e.g. not enough achievement, not nibbling away at my problems and watching leverage build up)

Strikingly to me, some of these seem tied to my psychology and I would hesitate to tell others "hey not having a plan is bad for you" when I know some people for whom planning is a mental health liability. Personalized medicine can't get good enough, fast enough.

<comment><USER34> > Bad sleep (I now use the calculator at sleepyti.me and have had great > results)

Interesting site, didn't knew about it!

I've checked it out, and as I wake everyday at 7am, it suggests me four different hours: 10pm, 11:30pm, 1am and 2:30am. What I find interesting is that none of it matches exactly the 8h average sleep value. As you say that you have had great results, could you comment a little bit on that?

Thanks!

<comment><USER35> 8 hours is typically time from bedtime to wake time. It allows for some time spent falling asleep, and maybe one wake-up to visit the bathroom.

You'll notice that your suggested wake times are an hour and a half apart. Natural sleep cycles tend to run about 90 minutes (on average). So 7.5 hours would be 5 cycles. 8 hours is 5 cycles plus that buffer time.

I haven't used the app you mention, but I have begun a habit of getting out of bed between cycles instead of whenever in the cycle my alarm goes off. It definitely increases morning alertness and willingness to get up. Not sure it affects restedness much.

And I've been measuring my sleep in cycles (or at least in 90 min increments) instead of in hours - which gives me a much clearer perspective on how much I've had and need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> tl;dr: we need wayyy more Vitamin D than previously recommended. ~13.3x more. Take supplements to reach 8000 IU/day for adults.

existing standards from the NIH: [https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD- HealthProfessiona...](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD- HealthProfessional/)

<comment><USER37> However the article doesn't describe any new research and cites a meta- analysis that has a different conclusion:

"A target range of 25(OH)D of greater than 30 ng/mL could be achieved in most individuals by intake of approximately 1000 IU per day of vitamin D3, which is one quarter the National Academy of Sciences–Institute of Medicine tolerable upper level of intake of 4000 IU per day at ages 9 years and older. Although it is above the National Academy of Sciences–Institute of Medicine–recommended daily allowance of 600 to 800 IU per day, intake of 1000 IU per day has been reported as safe for daily use for almost all adults, according to the recent Endocrine Society clinical guidelines. Still, some authors have expressed concern about the efficacy and absolute safety of doses greater than 1000 IU per day, so caution is reasonable. The Endocrine Society has established a tolerable upper-limit intake of 10 000 IU per day at ages 19 years and older. Doses of vitamin D3 below 10 000 IU per day in adults have not been associated with toxicity, and serum 25(OH)D concentrations less than 200 ng/mL are generally not considered toxic. This leaves a considerable margin of safety for efforts to raise the population concentration of 25(OH)D to 40 ng/mL."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4103214/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4103214/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Interesting that this stems in part from misinterpretation of confidence intervals. The referenced paper, A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D [0], seems like an excellent example to illustrate how (and how not) to interpret confidence intervals.

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/#!po=22...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/#!po=22.5000)

</comment><comment><USER39> A couple years after I moved to Seattle I started noticing some odd aches and pains. After a coworker had similar issues, I went to the doctor, and they tested my Vitamin D levels. They were ridiculously low. They had me on a high initial dose, and than taking supplements ever since. I've heard the same story from tons of neighbors. Nowadays it's one of my first suggestions for new transplants. It's made a marked difference (along with a sunlamp).

<comment><USER40> What sorts of aches and pains? I'm only asking since my body just effing hurts sometimes, usually my upper back/ribs...especially when I'm stoned :/

<comment><USER41> Not OP, but I had a similar experience. In my case it was stomach and bowel pains, like cramps... combined with anxiety without reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> If you intend to take vitamin d I read in various places you should also take magnesium and probably vitamin k as well. And less calcium. Everything is interconnected.

[https://www.precisionnutrition.com/stop- vitamin-d](https://www.precisionnutrition.com/stop-vitamin-d)

<comment><USER43> I recently started taking 3000mg of magnesium per day as magnesium chelate. The bottle recommends three capsules per day for muscle spasms / cramps.

Historically, I have a couple of basic assault charges, an assault with sexual intent charge, I was charged with two counts of trafficking a controlled drug (later dropped).

Shortly after I commenced taking six capsules a day I started feeling a _lot less psychotic_.

<comment><USER44> I would also recommend taking Zinc with it. I was taking Magnesium at one point by itself and developed a muscle twitch which was fixed by adding Zinc.

<comment><USER43> Yep, been taking zinc as zinc chelate and / or zinc gluconate for years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> About once every 6 months I remember to start taking my vit D supplements again. I've always taken more than the recommended dose because vitamin D is not extremely bioavailable in pill-form, and I notice amazing improvements in mood, mostly. Usually I am sad in the mornings. I have a cup of coffee, browse around on HN, and then convince myself to do work, and the sadness goes away with the distraction, and by the evening I feel pretty good for "doing so much work". When I take vitamin D, after about a week I begin to wake up and set to work immediately, leaving time in the evening for fucking around. I really should do that now, before finals.

<comment><USER46> Same experience for me. The University of Washington headache clinic recommended Vitamin D and Magnesium supplements and it made a marked difference in my mood. Turns out having constant mild headaches is pretty depressing.

<comment><USER47> Have to be careful with magnesium, too much and you'll spend the entire day on the toilet been reminded that topologically humans are a tube.

<comment><USER45> This effect is more pronounced with lower-quality magnesium supplements, such as magnesium oxide, magnesium sulfate, and magnesium chloride. These compounds are insoluble in water (magnesium oxide), or their counter-ions are not absorbed (magnesium sulfate). Magnesium + glycine (specifically bisglycinate which is the magnesium salt with two glycine molecules) is more bioavailable and does not have a laxative effect since glycine is easily absorbed by cell walls. Magnesium citrate also does not have a marked laxative effect and is more bioavailable than magnesium oxide, but less bioavailable than magnesium bisglycinate.

<comment><USER47> Thank you for the info, I'll check those out, my medication is thought to affect nutrient levels so I take supplements (I found out about the laxative effects myself..)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Coincidentally, another submission from earlier today points to a study that says that (lack of) Vitamin D can impact sleep quality: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15862222](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15862222).

</comment><comment><USER49> If the recommendations of this study become the guideline, it may validate the other studies suggesting that nearly everyone is deficient in magnesium, which is a co-factor in the Vitamin D / calcium cycle.

AFAIK (and correct me if I'm wrong), the vitamin D metabolism requires magnesium, calcium, vitamin K2, and vitamin A. K2 in particular needs special attention, as it's the hardest of the substrates to get.

<comment><USER37> It's not a study. It's an article that cites other studies.

<comment><USER49> It has an abstract, so I figure it's a meta-analysis and not just an article.

<comment><USER37> It's not a meta-analysis either. It cites a meta-analysis, which has different conclusions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Steve Gibson has talked about this issue in the past: [https://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm](https://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm)

(And please, yes we get it you are a smart ass, don't link to the page that you are going to. The horse has been beaten to death.)

<comment><USER51> Now I'm curious as to what page you're referring to.

<comment><USER50> I'm not going to refer to it. If you are curious search on google or HN.

<comment><USER52> It seems dishonest to hide content that may be relevant to the discussion, especially after teasing it that way. Maybe if it warrants mentioning in your original comment it also warrants explaining why you think it's irrelevant?

<comment><USER50> There's no dishonesty. They are easily found for anyone interested. As I said the horse been has beaten to death so I didn't want to do what I was discouraging others from doing.

They are mostly uneducated, lazy, decade-old, hand-wavy, and baseless personal attacks on him.

The man has been a geek, engineer, programmer and a techie for multiple decades.

He has been on record for the past 12-13 years audio, video and text transcripts, 2-3 hours per week, discussing many topics in detail, explaining his thoughts and ideas and reasoning carefully (on SecurityNow podcast, 600+ episodes!).

Every time he has made a mistake he comes back and carefully corrects himself, and it doesn't happen often either.

He is no Linus Torvalds, and he doesn't claim to be one, most of us aren't either.

And his knowledge goes into all sorts of weird corners from science fiction to medicine like the vitamin D stuff and the "sleep formula".

All of it available for free for anyone who has the patience to sit through it and learn. I have, and he has improved my life in many ways that I owe him for and can never pay back (including starting to take vitamin D many years ago after he talked about as I have referred to).

He has contributed positively to this community and industry for many years. He has done nothing to deserve people bringing up stupid pages that call him a "charlatan" or "snake oil salesman" every time someone calls his name.

There isn't even any substance to those claims. Most of them say "he said XP raw sockets were bad!! GET HIM!!".

Or variations of "Spinrite doesn't fix prostate cancer. It must be snake oil software.".

He has probably explained 10+ hours on SecurityNow the history behind Spinrite, what it does, what it doesn't, why it works, where it works, where it doesn't work and everything in between.

But these bitter 20-something neckbeards are too busy for that. Let's jump the man that has been a programmer for longer than you have existed because he uses assembly or something ... GET HIM!

I have no horse in this race. I'm just angry at the smug reply that inevitably follows every time him or his pages/products/projects are mentioned.

As if everyone needs to be warned about this monster of a man for the unimaginable sins he committed 10+ years ago when he said something about XP raw sockets, or something else.

If these people criticising him had produced a tenth of the content that he has produced they would have made many more mistakes.

What are we to do now? Crucify Gibson because his Spinrite software doesn't perform miracles? Or because he has made a few mistakes here and there? Everyone else is perfect?

Are we going to dig up the past history of everyone else who is mentioned too? And link to a page that enumerates the minor mistakes they have made over their entire career?

Go dig up Github commits to shame people who introduced stupid bugs in open source software? (not that he has, just an example)

Or how about we dig through their medium posts, conference presentations, and list and archive any possible mistakes.

Then every time someone mentions them say "HEY LOOK EVERY BODY THIS PERSON HAS MADE 3 WHOLE MISTAKES SINCE 10 YEARS AGO, THEY ARE CLEARLY A MONSTER! STAY FAR AWAY.".

It is completely uncalled for and has gotten real old.

He doesn't come here to write something like this himself so I had to do it for him.

Steve, if you ever read this, thank you for your work.

Edit: fixed some typos, added some additional sentences

<comment><USER53> Jesus man, I think you overestimate the amount of people with an axe to grind against Steve Gibson and you're letting whatever negativity, real or imagined, majorly distract from your original comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> But who said increasing of serum levels of Vitamin D by pills intake will decrease mortality??

What about side effects of such massive UNCONDITIONAL top-down recommendations?

</comment><comment><USER55> This older paper suggests vitamin D isn't as important - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article- abstract/2478893?redirect=true). I'm not sure which is correct, but good to have an opposing view.

<comment><USER56> This paper suggests that increasing vitamin D intake from 800 IU/d to 2000 IU/d doesn't increase the risk of falling over and fracturing a bone.

I wouldn't call that especially relevant, and it's definitely not an opposing view.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> This article recommends around 100 nmol/L. Most people are between 20-30, because they don't get enough Sun and do not take supplements. It gets really really bad when the number gets below 10 and it takes months to recover.

Another Vitamin whose deficiency cause irreversible damage is B12. Folks, get both of these checked.

<comment><USER58> I happen to have a gene mutation that makes methylation of B12 inefficient. I never did well in chemistry or biology for that matter, but my limited understanding is that methylation is necessary for it to be useful.

It turns out that you can buy methylated B12 called methylcobalamin. The more common form is cyanocobalamin, and is not very useful for people like myself.

That is my understanding, if anyone here knows better or more, please correct me.

<comment><USER57> Thanks for this added information. I discovered the same thing, with another family member where Methylcobalamin worked wonders and Cyanocobalamin didn't.

One thing I would add is that Methylcobalamin needs to be injected to work best. If people do not have your gene mutation, they are better off taking Cyanocobalamin.

PS: Whenever someone in family has major health issue which no one can get handle on - they reach out to me. My lifelong dream has been to cure Cancer using AI. Just started working on that.

<comment><USER59> I thought the injection was typically hydroxocobalamin. Has this changed?

<comment><USER57> Yep, they are and also the best form. Extremely unstable in capsules and oral supplements though.

Methylcobalamin isn't very effective orally. However someone with a gene mutation doesn't have any choices.

<comment><USER60> It actually is quite effective, much like cyanocobalamin. (The usual form in supplements.) Needs just slightly higher dosage than hydroxocobalamin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Everyone supplementing and doing their own tests should be careful to note the difference between nmol and ng/ml.

100 nmol = 40 ng/ml

ng/ml is the most common measure in India and many other places.

<comment><USER62> Uh, you should be careful too! There's some error in what you wrote too. Is that nmol/L that you mean?

<comment><USER63> What is the correct conversion? Quest, one of the dominant lab providers in the US, reports in ng/mL and I'm not sure how to interpret my result in nmol/L.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> what is this saying in plain english? That we all need to take vitamin D supplements?

<comment><USER65> or better, just spend more time outside.

<comment><USER66> The amount of disinformation commonly expressed about vitamin D is quite amazing.

Bogus claims:

1\. Spend a couple of minutes outside and you will be OK.

2\. It is absorbed through the eyes.

3\. Deficiencies are rare.

When in fact:

1\. Does not apply at any time when your body is covered up mostly. Wear trousers and a T-shirt and you've cut yourself off severely already. Add weather with less sun, sunscreen, and/or more clothes and you've cut yourself off almost entirely unless you are outside for very long periods of time.

2\. Fuck no.

3\. They are extremely common even in sunny places. In the developed world a majority of people are.

<comment><USER67> You'd think sunny places would fare better - however after moving to Key West from Montreal I discovered people here spent a lot of effort _avoiding_ the sun (skin cancer is big down here).

<comment><USER8> As someone with fair skin, I'd be harming myself if I tried to get vitamin D from the sun. And very badly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Hmm. "Actions are urgently needed to protect the global population from vitamin D deficiency." I wish this sentence wasn't in the abstract, because it's the first thing the "science journalists" are going to latch on to. It's not like people's bones are snapping because everyone has rickets. Maybe not an urgent need, just something we should publish a revised RDA and diet guideline. We had a very different looking food pyramid when I was growing up, but changing it didn't drastically increase life expectancy. Everyone choking down extra vitamins isn't going to fix a non-existent problem.

</comment><comment><USER69> I see a number of comments about taking Vitamin D for mood and SAD issues.

My goto site for supplements is [http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-o...](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake- oil-scientific-evidence-for-nutritional-supplements-vizsweet/)

It essentially ranks supplements based on the amount of research there is to support the claim (so the same supplement can show up in multiple categories). You can see Vitamin D is backed by a lot of research for various ailments, but the category for which there is least evidence is mood related disorders.

On a side note, be very wary of the supplements you take (in the US). There is virtually no oversight in their manufacture, and various groups' investigations have shown that the claimed dosage can be way, way off. And the inactive ingredients may be false as well. Relying on well known companies did not seem to make a difference.

I recall an interview with a pharmacist at a hospital that had decided they test the supplements they had in stock - given that they were giving them to patients. They were rather shocked.

If anyone has a good resource where a group tests different manufacturers' supplements and has some kind of reliability rating, I'd love to know. I pretty much stopped taking supplements when I saw how unreliable the claimed dosages were.

<comment><USER70> For me Examine.com is the best source on supplements/vitamins

take for example Vitamin D [https://examine.com/supplements/vitamin-d/](https://examine.com/supplements/vitamin-d/)

as for your question regarding Supplement manufacturers test check labdoor [https://labdoor.com/](https://labdoor.com/)

<comment><USER69> Looking at Vitamin D on Labdoor:

>6 of the 19 products in this report exceeded their label claims by greater than 40%.

>All 19 vitamin D supplements met or exceeded their claimed vitamin D3 content, ranging from +0 to +900.0 IU versus their stated label claims.

>The average label variance in this testing batch was 22%.

Wow.

Let's look at melatonin:

>Only half of the products tested (15 of 30) measured melatonin levels within 10% of their label claims. 7 products deviated from their claims for melatonin by at least 25%. 3 of those products recorded 40% or more melatonin than their label claims, and 1 product had less than 1% of its label claim for melatonin.

Vitamin B12:

>Overall, vitamin B12 measurements in this batch analysis ranged from 515 mcg to 6990 mcg per serving, deviating from label claims by an average of 27%. 3 products also recorded vitamin B6 and/or vitamin B9. 9 of the 13 products recorded more vitamin B12 than claimed, with one product recording as much as 74% of its label claim for vitamin B12. All products passed heavy metal screenings, and recorded vitamin B12 levels considered to be safe by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Anecdotal I know, but I've heard of a couple of different areas where a a medical professional recommends Vitamin D supplements to their patient.

Someone I know has been told to take vitamin D to help manage relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis[1]

Another person has been recommended vitamin D to help with conception.

Seems to pop up all over the place.

[1] [https://www.mssociety.org.uk/ms-research/emerging- areas/vita...](https://www.mssociety.org.uk/ms-research/emerging- areas/vitamin-d)

<comment><USER72> Henry Osieki in the 9th edition of his book _The Nutrient Bible_ factors increasing demand for Vitamin D include:

 _alcohol, autoimmune reactive arthritis, bile problems, cancer (breast, prostate, colon, and skin). Crohn 's disease, cystic fibrosis, elderly individuals, hypoparathyroidism, intestinal disorders, insulin dependent diabetes, kidney disorders, lack of exposure to sun, mineral oil intake multiple sclerosis, obesity pancreatic disease, pregnancy, rickets, schizophrenia, smog exposure, ulcerative colitis, use of anti convulsants e.g. phenytoin and phenobarbital, steroid medication, vegetarianism._

Functions facilitated: _anti-proliferative effect - osteosarcoma, melanoma, colon and breast cancer, apoptosis, anti-inflammatory action, blood clotting, calcium and phosphate absorption and regulation, cofactor in synthesis of heat shock proteins, differentiates leukaemia cells and induces apoptosis, heart and muscle action, helps induce monocyte conversion to macrophages, increases bone strength, induces apoptosis in breast and prostate cancer, increases neurotrophic factor synthesis (NGF, GDNF, NF-3), increases the activity of tyrosine hydroxylase and choline acetyltransferase, increases neural glutathione levels, inhibits iNOS and TFN - alpha activity, immune-regulating properties, mineralisation of bone and teeth potent anti-proliferative agent in the colon, protects against neurotoxicity associated with ischaemia, reduces the risk of colorectal and prostate cancer, regulates cellular differentiation in intestinal cells, regulates or inhibits T-cell mediated immune response, regulation of calcium and phosphorous metabolism, selectively reduces interleukin 2 levels and proliferation of T cells, stimulates polyamine, stimulator of ornithine decarboxylase and spermidine acetyl transferase._

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> The USDA partnered with industry to develop a process for increasing Vitamin D levels in mushrooms by simply exposing them to ultraviolet light.

Monterey Mushrooms has a video showing how this step was added to the packaging process:

[http://www.montereymushrooms.com/nutrition/mushrooms-with- vi...](http://www.montereymushrooms.com/nutrition/mushrooms-with-vitamin-d/)

</comment><comment><USER74> Interesting admission. There's been recognition of subclinical vitamin D deficiencies for years in the professional athlete community, a segment of the population at higher risk of bone and tissue disorders:

[http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/2010/09000/High...](http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/2010/09000/High_Prevalence_of_Vitamin_D_Insufficiency_in.9.aspx) [http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/abs/10.1123/ijsnem.18....](http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/abs/10.1123/ijsnem.18.2.204)

There is no reason not to get tested given how easy it is to order online: [https://www.accesalabs.com/Vitamin-D- Test](https://www.accesalabs.com/Vitamin-D-Test)

I've tried out a handful of supplements for Vitamin D but haven't landed on a good one. Has anyone tested, tried specific supplements, and then retested and documented results?

</comment><comment><USER75> This makes it sound impossible for some people to get enough vitamin D from sun and food without supplements. If you're fair skinned and living in northern climates, you'll be deficient even with a healthy diet given that you can't be out in the sun that long without burning. Is the human body that defective?

<comment><USER76> Wouldn't it be if you are dark skinned not faired skin?

<comment><USER75> This is true, yes. But really both have issues. It takes much longer in the sun for a dark skinned person to get enough exposure to produce a healthy amount of D. But the fair skinned person burns readily, so they can't stay in the sun long without protection which would inhibit getting enough sun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Living in scandinavia I've taken vitamin D every winter. But lately started taking it all year.

I've been sloppy and it seems to coincide with periods of poor energy and a bad mood.

I'm not sure if the energy and mood precede the drop in vitamin use or vice versa. But either way I think it's good to supplement if you live up north.

</comment><comment><USER78> If you're looking for a better way to get vitamin D from supplements, try drops instead of pills. Each drop contains ~1000 IU, so you could get around 40,000 IU with just a dropper-full... For most of us, a week's worth of 40,000 IU/day could really be a boost.

"Taking 50,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600 IU of vitamin D a day.Feb 5, 2015" ([https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition- and-h...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy- eating/expert-answers/vitamin-d-toxicity/faq-20058108))

<comment><USER78> I'm remembering when I did this, I made sure to take epsom salt baths to absorb magnesium!

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> One point of caution:

Anyone who takes Vitamin D supplement, make sure you take 25-Hydroxy (Calcifediol) and not the active form - 1,25 dihydroxy (Calcitriol).

Active form has severe side effects and is not supposed to be used for supplementation unless in you have kidney problem which prevent metabolizing 25-Hydroxy.

<comment><USER49> I thought all D2 and D3 supplements would be ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol, respectively, while calcitriol is what gets tested to assess blood levels. Do any supplements actually contain calcitriol?

<comment><USER57> Medical system in India is a mess of kickbacks. A Doctor gave my cousin a prescription of Calcitriol because it was much more expensive. Led to major side effects which went away as soon as it was stopped.

Supplements don't have it. However that warning was for someone who goes out of way to acquire Calcitriol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> One of the many great videos on the subject D is for Debacle - The Crucial Story of Vitamin D and Human Health, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pK0dccQ38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pK0dccQ38)

</comment><comment><USER80> I always wondered about this. Since I was very young, let's say after age 14 or so I rarely travelled for summer vacation and was living in Europe and had almost no vitamin D from sunlight (working as software engineer and being a nerd so all my hobbies were indoors).

I have always felt like I missed having a good time at a beach while sun was shining (I remember it from family vacations when I was very young). Since then I have spent couple of months in a country near equator and gotten lots of (hours per day) sunlight. I feel healthier and happier now.

I also used to have deficiency of vitamin B when I was very young. I remember I had to eat lots of fish oil to replenish my B complex (recommended by my doctor).

</comment><comment><USER81> Several years ago I read an article on Facebook about vitamin D, and because I was in pain and tried many things like this, I read more about it, and started using 2000 IU daily. In about two weeks I felt a lot better. Later that year I was on holiday in the mediterrenean and noticed how much better I felt after a morning in the sun. This made me decide to take even more, so I increased use to 6000 IU/d, and I felt even better.

Several weeks ago I had my blood tested, and I came out under 100nmol, which shocked me. I changed pills immediately, and am going to test again. I want levels to be around 120, so I'm going to test once again. I'm going to call my docter right now in fact.

<comment><USER78> I recommend 1000 IU drops. They contain 1000 IU in a single drop, literally. You can get them off the shelf at my local health foods co-op. I've taken 40,000 IU before in a single day (I read that was a safe upper limit for most people). It felt amazing. It also helped me process built up emotions from winter darkness and depression. That day I took 40000IU I literally wept, then felt relief like none other, and a lightness of being.

Also, by the way, people under stress might appreciate some vitamin B complex. There's a reason why they put vitamin B in those 5 hour energy drinks: it helps our bodies cope with the stress of that much caffeine.

<comment><USER81> Be careful with that kind of dose! To compensate for insufficiency, it's totally OK, but I wouldn't take it daily. You may start suffering from calcification of the bones. This cannot be undone.

<comment><USER78> Its good to be cautious. I did some research to come up with this upper limit as an amount to take on a given day, and also wouldn't be worried about taking this daily for a week since I live in Minnesota and am chronically deficient.

"Taking 50,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600 IU of vitamin D a day.Feb 5, 2015" ([https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition- and-h...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> I read another post somewhere that said all you need is 12 minutes of direct sunlight to maximize your Vitamin D intake. It's because your body can only absorb so much vitamin D at one time, from the Sun.

As for food products, there aren't that many natural sources of vitamin D. Milk is fortified with vitamin D but doesn't come with it naturally.

Given how few sources of vitamin D there are: [http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=110](http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=110) I don't see how our species could have evolved to depend on vitamin D (other than being outdoors).

<comment><USER83> It drives me crazy that popular brands of soy and almond milk don't have vitamin D. I've long moved off real milk because its really calories dense and gives me gas. Now I'm missing out on one of the few easy sources of vitamin d.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I found the podcast Science Vs very helpful in understanding this topic - [https://gimletmedia.com/episode/vitamins-supplements- worth/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/vitamins-supplements-worth/)

I was recommended Vitamin D by the wife of a Chiropractor. I do 2000IU somewhat daily to every other day in the winter & 5000IU if I feel a cold coming on with some extra zinc. This has made a significant improvement in my ability to fend off colds. That said, I do try to exercise a few times a week & eat as reasonably healthy as one can do in the far north midwest of America.

</comment><comment><USER85> For Vitamin D 1IU is 0.025mcg. 8000IU = 200mcg My box of vitamin shows a Vitamin D3 content on 5mcg/pill (noted as 100% of recommended daily intake). Time to change pill I guess...

<comment><USER86> Off by a factor of 10.

0.025mcg * 8000 = 20mcg

<comment><USER85> no... 200 is correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> This is fake news. I'll explain why I think so. Please counter me if I'm wrong.

>>This piece of news is a literal "copy-paste" of the abstract of the article "Big Vitamin D Mistake - BVDM"

BVDM is an article published by a Greek group. About the population from Finland.

BVDM has 2 premises and 2 conclusions.

>Premise 1: There is a correlation (not causation) reported recently in Finland of country-wide vit. D supplementation and lower Diabetes Mellitus type 1 incidence. >Premise 2: There was a study published in America (Meta Analysis of All Cause Mortality and Vitamin D - MAACVD) that investigated deaths that had the lab values of vitamin D available. The main finding of the study was: Vit. D levels of >30ng/mL is probably better than <9ng/mL, correlated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio of 1.6 to 2.2).*

THESE ARE THE PREMISES AND NO MORE. Here are their magical conclusions:

>Conclusion 1: The right level of vitamin D is 100ng/mL. This is apparently extrapolated from a subgroup analysis in MAACVD. I find this extrapolation shocking because: 1- this finding wasn't considered significant enough to be published in the abstract by the original American group. 2- subgroup analyses shouldn't be extrapolated. >Conclusion 2: in order to make sure everyone gets this alleged "correct vit. D levels", here are the doses of supplementation that everyone should get.

>> As you can see, the conclusions are far outside the realm of possibilities offered by the premises. What the Greek authors did was nitpick a couple of minor points in some random published studies and synthesize them into a magical conclusion of how much more Vit D everyone should take (more than 3x the current recommended amount in some ages).

This is sensationalism. I'm sorry to see such poor material to be presented as science by "scientists" and "scientific journals".

>>Please correct me if I'm wrong.

*PS: I wasn't able to read the MAACVD full article, it wasn't free online. In these kinds of articles, the axis of the study is presented in the abstract, and the most significant findings are never left out. If someone has access to the full text, please share it with me and this forum.

</comment><comment><USER88> Anybody have tips on balancing all the cofactors? You need other things to absorb & use the vitamin D. Some kind of multivitamin that focused only on D and its cofactors might be handy, without going whole-hog to the "everything" multivitamin popular today.

</comment><comment><USER89> Vitamin D and Alzheimer's [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4153851/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4153851/)

</comment><comment><USER90> The Vitamin D council page answers nearly every question I've seen in these posts: [https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/](https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/)

</comment><comment><USER62> Is it standard for medical papers to write values with four significant figures when they appear to have less than one significant figure worth of precision? This is an actual question.

<comment><USER91> Are you talking about the abstract or is there something in the actual paper you're talking about? Because I can't personally see anything in the abstract to suggest that the values quoted to 4 s.f. only have 1 s.f. of precision.

<comment><USER62> Yes, the abstract. One sentence cites a result suggesting that 8895 IU/d is necessary to reach >= 50nmol/L and the next another that 6201 IU/d is necessary to reach 75 nmol/L. Clearly these aren't compatible to even 1 significant figure. Now, of course this is a matter of accuracy and not of precision, but do you really believe someone's 4 sig figs of precision is at all justified when they disagree with another person's 4 sig figs to such an extent? It's possible, I guess! But I'm betting if you look at the original study you only have 1 or maybe 2 significant figures that are actually justified.

Look further at the paper where the 8895 number comes from [1]. That's the only number reported to more than 2 sig figs in the paper and comes in this context [emphasis mine]: "It also _estimated_ that 8895 IU of vitamin D per day may be needed to accomplish that 97.5% of individuals achieve serum 25(OH)D values of 50 nmol/L or more. As this dose is far beyond the range of studied doses, _caution is warranted when interpreting this estimate_. Regardless, the _very high estimate illustrates_ that the dose is well in excess of the current RDA of 600 IU per day and the tolerable upper intake of 4000 IU per day [1]." The two figures don't even show half the range needed to see this value and make it pretty clear that this is a laughable amount of precision to report. To make this clear: the value reported is the intercept of the dashed red line with the 50nmol/L line in the second figure -- which has been extrapolated out to a value almost _three times as large as the highest dose used in any experiment_. And the extrapolation is done on a curve that is getting very close to level at that point so even a _minor_ error in dose response would cause a large error in reported dose. Frankly, after looking at this, I don't think the originally posted article should have quoted this number in its abstract - the point of this paper seems to be to show that the standard value of 600 IU/day is unsupported form the data, not to suggest that their 8895 IU/day is well supported.

Consider the most well-studied nutritional number we ever see: the daily caloric intake! It's never given more than 2 sig figs and often just 1! And this study is making the argument that the daily recommendations for this are off by a factor of 10x. It'll take a lot to convince me that any number in nutrition can be reported to 4 significant figures, and even then I expect that it would be useless since inter-person variation is going to cause at least a 1% difference (probably more like 25% differences like calories just for men/women differences).

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> I think that vitamin D defficiency may have contributed to start of my Multiple Sclerosis! I used to sit mostly inside all summer programming. So be careful.

</comment><comment><USER93> Is this specific to North America? As someone who lives along the equator, I think it's impossible to get too little sun exposure in these parts.

<comment><USER94> The study was about Finland. Scandinavia and northern countries broadly often have a variety of bad health effects from very low VitD levels (including eg very high rates of multiple sclerosis). Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, UK, Germany are among the nations with the highest rates of multiple sclerosis, heavily due to their low VitD.

If you don't get enough sun (a minority of people anywhere on the planet do or can), Vitamin D can be an important supplement no matter where you live. It's well worth it to have a simple blood test done to get your levels checked, if you can at some point, just to know where you stand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> D3 is the more active form that's more readily absorbed. I've found the Metagenics brand to be the best.

</comment><comment><USER96> Anyone who thinks they are D deficient should just go to the doctor and get your blood tested.

</comment><comment><USER97> > 8895 IU/d

This is double what I'm taking. The US RDA is 1/10th of this amount.

<comment><USER98> Yes, that's the argument in the article: that the RDA is far too low.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> How do you get your levels checked in the UK if you have private insurance?

<comment><USER100> I was just looking this up after reading this article and discovered that an NHS lab can send you a test kit in the post for £28, which will likely be cheaper than any private option.

[http://www.vitamindtest.org.uk/](http://www.vitamindtest.org.uk/)

<comment><USER99> thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> One con of being in a Tropical country is that you don't have to worry about your Vitamin D intake. The sun roasts you every year in the pre Monsoon heat.

</comment><comment><USER102> so does that mean we need more or less vitamin D?

<comment><USER103> More; a lot more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> This is one of the reasons I hate dermatologist's panic against sun exposure. Vitamin D deficiency kills way more people than skin cancer.

<comment><USER105> My dermatologist actually told me to get more sun, but then I have psoriasis.

I believe his exact recommendation was one beach vacation every early Feb.

<comment><USER16> Does insurance pay for that? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> not to mention apparent connection to autism. Best example - Somali immigrant populations concentrated in Sweden and Minnesota have unnaturally high child autism rates and extremely low vitamin D levels (very dark skin, weak Sun, a lot of clothes covering almost the whole body most of the year due to the cold climate). Another Swedish study found, though much smaller effect, uptick in autism rates among children whose 3rd trimester, when the brain develops the fastest, fell onto the winter.

</comment><comment><USER107> Sufficient vitamin D is gained primarily from Sun exposure..

typically between 10am and 2pm, I have read that at certain latitudes and times of year the required window is considerably less but cannot find a reference.

[http://www.return2health.net/articles/does-vitamin-d- really-...](http://www.return2health.net/articles/does-vitamin-d-really-come- from-the-sun/)

<comment><USER16> This is a very caucasian centric viewpoint.

The fact is that if you live in higher latitudes and have dark skin, you physically cannot absorb enough vitamin D from sunlight during the winter months. While it is physically possible during the summer, it is not practical to spend hours sunbathing.

<comment><USER107> That's a very coloured centric viewpoint.

The fact is that the majority of people of planet earth can go out in the sunshine at the right time of day and get 80-90% the vitamin D they need and get the rest from a balanced diet.

<comment><USER16> No that is not true at all. In today's world people of all races are living everywhere, so we should give recommendations based off a person's individual health. It is simply not true that a brown skinned person can absorb enough vitamin D from the sun in the northern latitudes.

I said the above viewpoint was caucasian centric because it assumed that everyone could get enough vitamin D from the sun. My response is not 'coloured'-centric because I did not say that no one could get enough from the sun, only that your absorption depends on your skin color. My response was not a generalization, unlike the comment I replied to.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: review my idea for a consultancy/incubator [slides] - <AUTHOR> http://app.sliderocket.com/app/FullPlayer.aspx?id=C04AFA19-DFE8-4D4E-CFC5-D6BF1FBAE3F8 I have been considering several ideas for how to get my next startup off the ground without going back to zero income. There are several options available of course, but I wanted to focus on something that keeps paying the bills from the get go and leaves me without investors controlling the company. The idea is inspired by 37signals success turning a consultancy into a product. This takes it to the next level, a cooperative incubator funded by part time consultant work. <comment><USER2> I originally started my angel fund as an incubator (The Hit Forge). I quickly moved away because of Adverse Selection - the best entrepreneurs are insanely committed to themselves and their ideas, and rationally or irrationally, don't want to diversify. Since then, I've invested in a lot of companies, including Twitter and Disqus and Heyzap, and am glad that I did so. The Incubator model works as a "search" model (MRL Ventures, Obvious Labs, Ooga) where the Incubator "finds" a company that the principals join, but not as an "investment" model where the incubator survives and keeps spinning out companies. This is true because you can't create or replace entrepreneurs - you can only discover them or be them, but you can't create them.

The other problem with this proposal is that the Internet is extremely competitive. You can't do anything great part-time over the long term. A funded team working full-time has a huge advantage on you.

Of course, giving up control sucks. "Valuation is temporary, control is forever." And a business controlled by VCs too early can't innovate easily. So, either raise money from angels, or learn how to negotiate with Venture capitalists. Check out Nivi and my writings (sorry, shameless plug) at <http://www.venturehacks.com>.

If you do have a good product with traction and are out raising VC money, ping me and I'd be happy to help you keep control (free!)

<comment><USER3> So how do ramen profitable companies and "Italian restaurants on the web" (ie. Small self-funded companies that fit a hugely profitable niche) fit your world view?

They (37s, fogcreek, etc.) did start as consulting businesses and raised little or no outside capital to build immensely profitable products...

<comment><USER2> They can work but generally they tend to be service companies for a long time before they become product companies. However, they're almost never done by part-timers. Even 37S and FogCreek are full-time labors of love. Also, there are always exceptions - I'm talking about mass statistics / average web startups - stuff similar to most YC companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like you've read the 4 hour work week and then went to an MLM recruitment meeting.=D

This not meant to be derogatory in any way, I do feel that you've put much thought into this. That is just my impression of the concept.

I think in theory, this is great. However it seems to me like rather than one person starting one business, you have "a team" starting multiple businesses _on top of_ managing their partnerships. I'm all for collaboration, but it seems to me like more work is being added, then taken out.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't really follow your first two sentences. I am interested in starting a company that I remain in control of, or at least share ownership with the other people doing the work, rather than having random people with money telling me what to do. I am not familiar with MLM, but the 4 hour workweek struck me as finding a way to do as little as possible so you could become a globetrotting rich kid.

As to your final point, it is a valid one. Splitting ones attention between a customer focused consultancy and a startup could well be too much. Ideally each person involved is simply bringing their current employer in to the fold, rather than going out and finding new customers they have no relationship with. I felt this was something I could have done with most of my previous corporate jobs, but it probably isn't universally applicable.

<comment><USER4> The 4hww reference is in regards to your plan _outsourcing yourself from your day job_. As well as the 50/50 split of working on your own time, and developing a business.

The MLM is in reference to: _founders convince other consultants to contribute their bench time_.

Obviously I know you are not trying to run a mult-level-marketing outfit, but I feel the implementation is similar.

I think your plan trivializes a lot of things. Mainly:

\- Outsource yourself from your day job

\- Start a startup

\- Teaming up with like-minded people as motivated as you.

\- Sharing profits "simply".

These are not trivial.

Also your main point is that you don't want you business to be dictated by outside investors. But why is the assumption that anyone investing money would be a detriment while anyone investing domain-knowledge and side-profits is an asset? (as per your consultancy network).

I don't see how giving equity to people _more like you_ is any better or worse than giving equity to outside investors. Equity is equity and if your main concern is not giving up control of your business, you should not be dealing in any equity whatsoever.

To me, you are trying to solve a purely business problem, but you are trying to do it in a way that involves the product development/tech side. Though, I have no idea if that is good or bad.

I am on board with exactly what you are saying. I want my own business to be _my business_. But this is why I'm a DHH disciple. Sure its not 1,2,3 easy, but the 37 signals way is COMMON SENSE, when it comes to business. So it sounds like your goals are more business then they are tech; in that case, start with the business side of things, and see how that fits into your tech ideas, not the other way around.

(just subjective advice - honestly meant as constructive criticism: best of luck)

<comment><AUTHOR> The goal of the post was not to trivialize the difficulty of accomplishing any of these steps, simply to outline what I saw as necessary ingredients. If you think any of them are insurmountable I would love to hear why.

To be clear, I don't really have a problem with the VC approach. I just see most of the success stories in that realm as people who become fantastically rich but lose control of their companies along the way. I am hoping to build something that is long term, sustainable and leaves me in control of the thing I created. I was not trying to imply that I prefer one type of person to have equity over another, rather I hoped to share equity among the people who contributed. The argument against VC money was wholly separate from the argument for paying contributors with equity. The latter is because cash will be tight and because I believe it is better to give people a stake in their future rather than just a paycheck and a task list.

Finally, the idea that I am solving a business problem over a technical one here is right on. I haven't really mentioned a startup idea. Previously, I spent a year trying to get a company off the ground by myself (and failed miserably). I learned that, for me, it would be better to work with others towards this goal while leveraging their experience, talent and outside perspectives. VCs can provide this as well, but at what price? This is simply meant to be another path towards the goal of a startup, with different sacrifices along the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This would work if you can find the people to make it work, consulting isn't really a "new" route to starting a startup and neither is using consulting income to support it instead of outside money.

The real question is how do you find these "entrepreneurial" people and convince them to join together with you for lower cash and higher risk than they would have if they were working by themselves

<comment><AUTHOR> The novel part (I think) is banding together and using it as a formal startup incubator.

I agree that the harder part is finding like minded people, which is why I put the idea up here. If it resonates with this crowd I think it is worth exploring further.

As for the risk, I believe grouping together lowers the risk. If each partner brings in a client there are more projects to share, and economies of scale make it easier to share resources and services. Speaking from experience, I can say going at a start up alone is not an easy endeavor.

<comment><USER5> But not only do you have to like the other people, you have to like their side projects, since everyone shares until ramen profitability. But most "side project" ideas are terrible. It seems to me that you'd end up with a bunch of megalomaniacs who are mediocre people.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but this strikes me as an incubator (ugh) where the inmates run the asylum. To me, the safest thing is still saving up some money, having a really good idea, and finding some technical friends to go "all in" with you for a year.

<comment><AUTHOR> The idea is that everyone is working on their own side project half of the time. If other members of the team collaborate it is in exchange for equity. No one is being asked to work on a startup they are not interested in.

Hopefully a group of entrepreneurs that are working together to create startups are also helping vet each others ideas. Going back to other people's comments, the team dynamics would be pretty important. If you think of your partners as inmates in an asylum the whole thing is probably doomed to failure no matter who is providing direction.

I actually have started a company with savings, which was enough money to support one person (me) for a year. I doubt I could have found other people who happened to be temporarily financially independent at the exact same time and interested in my idea. This way seems more practical to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds sorta like obvious corp, except they didn't need to consult due to being comfortable already. Get smart people together, build some cashflows, and work on cool side ideas. See what sticks and what doesn't.

Also reminds me of Virgance.

</comment><comment><USER7> midVentures are a bunch of University of Chicago and Northwestern alums who have joined together to do almost exactly what you describe: <http://midventures.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, I was not familiar with them. I read the web site and it doesn't really highlight if/how they bring in other entrepreneurs. I will have to get in touch with them, or perhaps check out their next event. Thanks for the link!

<comment><USER7> Funnily enough I was unware you were from Chicago when I wrote that. Through Jelly Chicago, I've come across several of these "lose band of entrepreneurs" type operations here in the city

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm currently working independently as a consultant, but I think it could be neat to band together with other freelancers. Getting projects and establishing a "brand" would be easier with more people and more project volume, and we could match up projects to team-members according to their availability and skillset.

I also don't think it needs to be tied to bootstrapping a startup.

</comment><comment><USER9> it seems that it ends up being a lot about finding the right combination of consultants. i already do the 50/50 split between my consulting and work on my vision project. and have been actively looking out for the right kinds of collaborations. be nice if there was a web service that spoke directly to this kind of linking "the 50/50 club" .. or maybe there is?

</comment><comment><USER10> I like your creative approach. My biggest concern is that any business you'd start would probably be service business. I suspect what you really want is a product business. You'd have to find a way to convert your service business into a product business to scale. Good luck. That part won't be easy.</comment>


Language Learning Journal: Why You Need One and Where to Start - <AUTHOR> http://twoweeklinguist.com/language-learning-journal/ <comment><USER2> I would recommend a learning journal for an entirely different reason: self analysis. Keeping solid documentation of your learning allows you to witness actual progress from "when I was a beginner" to "now", see how you may have had misconceptions about a particular issue in the language (which makes it easier to identify and teach about to other learners), and allows you to identify "pain points" that you've been stuck on without progress so you can work on them!

None of this freedom of creativity mumbo jumbo (something readily available in a language without a journal).

In your About Me you don't mention which language you learned. I imagine it's Japanese based on this blog, but that may not be obvious to people reading the page. Also, while some would say "Japanese is the hardest language in the world" (due to "3 alphabets") I would argue Chinese is harder (tones are a lot more difficult!), and many tribal African languages _far_ more difficult.

ps.

I bought a pocket-sized Moleskine (or maybe similar journal?) nearly 5 years ago - it's unmarked and unbranded and I was never able to find it in a store again. So thank you for introducing me to the brand-name of this fantastic journal. I absolutely love how it's lasted the test of time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I kept a language journal while studying abroad in Paris. I'd write down every unfamiliar French word I heard or read, all the then-incomprehensible idioms or slang I overheard, things people ordered in the boulangerie, platitudes relayed back and forth at the market.

Now, looking back at that journal, I remember the _context_ of nearly every single word, which makes each unforgettable. The lists of words seem random out of context, but read in context I am brought back to the occasion in which I heard the word.

Even now, years later, I still know most of the words I learned that year.</comment>


The word "intuitive" isn't (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/01/word-intuitive-isnt.html

<comment><USER2> Intuition is learned. Something is intuitive not because it's universally understood but because we have learned the meaning of it from a holistic point of view. This requires lots and lots of experience and, for that matter, trial and error.

Metaphors are only meaningful in retrospect. Don't count on the physical- looking button to be intuitive just because it's a metaphor from real life. Once you tell someone what a specific element means, they will most probably understand it, but not because of the metaphor itself.

There are no Bablefish in UX Designing products and services is like speaking French. Not everyone understands it. Comprenez-vous? The noob might pick up a word here and there, but they aren't, by any metrics, comfortable with participating in the conversation.

This all leads to the following conclusion:

Intuitive interaction is for experts, not for noobs Understanding something intuitively really means that you understand it holistically. If you understand it holistically, you can fill in the gaps. This doesn't mean you shouldn't make your design intuitive or improve on it—not at all. Just understand that you are doing it for those who already speak the language, not for the noobs.

So let's stop obsessing over whether something is intuitive and start obsessing over whether it's understandable.</comment>


2003 Boeing 727-223 disappearance - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Boeing_727-223_disappearance <comment><USER2> In 2009 a boing 737 originating out of Venezuela was purposefully crashed landed in the sahara desert to transport massive amounts of cocaine. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8364383.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8364383.stm) It is rumored that more planes were landed in the desert for similar purposes. Maybe the 727 was used as a one-way drug plane thereafter too?

<comment><USER3> It seems like they landed it fine but either crashed trying to take off again or just went overboard in demolishing it (when they had 10 tons of cocaine I think they might have been a bit exuberant): [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6w-doyje...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6w-doyjewoRGhOaaAHVYfrVWONQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool in-depth story about this: [http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- flight/the-727-that-va...](http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- flight/the-727-that-vanished-2371187/?all)

You really get a sense of how parts of Africa is like the wild west.

<comment><USER5> That was an exceedingly difficult article to read and understand. I've read a few of these lately - more characters and subplots than a period drama.

I am not sure what the solution to the writing dilemma is - exclude everything but a couple of people central to the story, fill in the rest with sidebars, work in an info-graphic...not sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _...and the tracking transponder was turned off._

That is interesting. I would have guessed that it be impossible to turn off the transponder on a commercial grade aircraft.

<comment><USER7> Easy as, the pilots are required to turn the transponder off as soon as they land, so planes on the ground don't show up on radar.

<comment><USER8> Yes - even worse, having it on close to the runway will trigger TCAS alerts for aircraft on final approach.

<comment><USER9> I also remember in one of the mayday episodes, that on one aircraft the transponder control was somehow near the foot rest. So it was very common for pilots on this model aircraft to accidentally disable or change transponder codes when they put their feet on the foot rest.

Sorry I don't remember which aircraft model or episode this was.

<comment><USER3> Old cars used to have the high beam switch down there, a totally reasonable concept. A switch that instantly throws every pilot and controller in the area into panic mode? I want to meet the people who approved that and see what their Pro/Con list looked like.

<comment><USER10> I believe the transponder code can be changed to a special value to indicate a hijack condition. Perhaps they install a sort of "silent alarm" control to do this?

<comment><USER11> 7500 - hence in light aircraft (with rotary dials to adjust each number) you have to switch the transponder to standby before changing squawk. Prevents briefly sending out a 75/76/7700 as you're rotating through them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABen_Charles_Padilla](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABen_Charles_Padilla)

> Yes, I am Joseph B. Padilla, SR. I live in Pensacola, Florida - U.S.A. I am > the Brother of Ben Charles Padilla Jr.

<comment><USER13> For those that missed it:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Charles_P...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Charles_Padilla&oldid=599085844)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A private plane was stolen from a friend of mine from a hangar in Texas. I think it showed up for sale as a salvage plane with its wings removed. Considering how valuable aircraft are, it seems a bit too economical to bribe hangar personnel.

</comment><comment><USER15> Fascinating entry on the Talk page from the brother of the missing pilot.

<comment><USER16> I was unable to find the link. Do you mind providing it?

<comment><USER17> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2003_Boeing_727-223_disapp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2003_Boeing_727-223_disappearance)

<comment><USER18> I don't see any mention of his brother on that page. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER15> My apologies. I wandered down the Wikipedia k-hole on this one and failed to realize it. The page on the pilot was deleted and merged into a section on the article of the event; the Talk page is here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Charles_P...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Charles_Padilla&oldid=16519812)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> No one says how much fuel was on the 'stolen' 727?

Seems an important piece of information.

</comment><comment><USER20> the first thing I though was "does Iran use the 727?". according to Wikipedia they do. Iran goes to great lengths to obtain military aircraft parts. does anyone know if commercial airline parts are also embargoed?

<comment><USER21> Civil aircraft parts are subject to US embargo. There are however, third party suppliers in Russia that can supply parts to Iran. Iran also has domestic parts productions capability.

The US Government sometimes allows limited parts supplies as part of ongoing negotiations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [wrong parent - deleted]

</comment><comment><USER22> Press Y

PRESS Y

GODAMMIT PRESS Y

</comment><comment><USER23> This seems like a hijack and the Malaysian incident seems like a hijack. How are there not satellite photos of the plane changing course and landing on a freighter or something? That's got to pop on a satellite image somewhere.

<comment><USER24> > How are there not satellite photos of the plane changing course and landing > on a freighter or something?

(1) Because a 777 has only a slightly better chance of landing on a freighter as a snowball has of landing -- still frozen -- on the surface of the sun, and

(2) Because there isn't satellite video being recorded of every point on the Earth's surface, including the oceans, 24/7, contrary to what one might infer from certain kinds of (deliberately fictional) movies and TV shows.

<comment><USER23> I guess I didn't mean it literally landed on a freighter, but something similar; like a small island or something. But it looks like it would've popped up on somebodies radar at some point before it landed.</comment></comment></comment>