Very interesting take on Vitamin D, I came across that VITAL-Telomere study earlier today but 2000 IU seems a bit high. The conclusion was "potential benefits of vitamin D on biological aging and age-related diseases." This study group was in the "elderly" category that might benefit since they experience decrease production in skin production and and reduction from age-related renal function. So it seems that supplementation is a good idea. They mentioned the need for larger studies with more diverse population. I consider this low evidence but older folks would likely benefit from supplementation. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12020-022-03208-3
Like to make a note that any supplement should have third party lab certification. This is a good guideline.
In terms of exercise, a fat soluble vitamin stored in adipose tissue released with exercise seems logical but we still needed to do the science. Ginger foot pads? Might make me think of a ginger curry dish while attached to my foot.
I will definitely review the VITAL-Telomere RCT in an upcoming newsletter, given the evidence that telomere shortening undermines chromosomal stability and increases the risk of a lot of bad stuff.
I appreciate the comment about lab certification - I'll revise this post in the archive to remind folks that supplements don't necessarily contain what they claim to contain, and at the same time they may contain....a lot of bad stuff.
I would prefer ginger knee pads. Scientists have proven that more toxins leave your body through the knees than the feet. That way they don't have to travel so far. (One more ridiculous statement like that and I'll win an administrative post at HHS. :)
Some research suggests that high levels of d3 are associated with greater risk of pancreatic/prostate cancer. This risk depends strongly on latitude ie avg uv levels.
There are also reports that calcium metabolism requires less d3 when grain consumption is greatly reduced thus eliminating the need to supplement d3.
Thank you. The studies linking high levels of vitamin D intake to increased risk of pancreatic cancer were intriguing because the researchers had reasons to expect the opposite-i.e., in vitro studies suggesting that vitamin D kills pancreatic cancer cells.
All the same I'm not entirely persuaded by the data, because these studies used case-control designs and I don't think they did a great job of characterizing the dietary and lifestyle practices of those with highest vitamin D intake. In other words, vitamin D intake may not have been the true risk factor.
What is your take on Vieth's old work that suggesrs that it is unsafe to take large irregular doses of vitamin D3? The tissue levels of the active vitamin D are not what are measured by common D3 test.
Also self-reports suggest that sunburn can be largely eliminated by sharply reducing personal exposure to w6 fats.
I had a different impression of Vieth, which is that for several decades he has suggested that upper limits on vitamin D intake are too conservative. He doesn't make Linus Pauling-type claims about the benefits of what most would call excessive intake, but he does seem committed to the notion that the ULs are too low, and he makes his case thoughtfully.
All the same, I would be cautious about exceeding the ULs, because the risk-benefit ratio doesn't look good. The risks of hypercalcemia increase, but there's no clear evidence of mental or physical benefits.
This was a good one, Vitamin D is such a minefield, it's nice to see a well executed study carving out a cobblestone of ground truth that people can support some mental models on.
My basic understanding has been the following for a while:
1. Pretty much everyone is Vitamin D deficient, and deficiencies directly correlate with a number of morbidities (and even all cause mortality)
2. But D supplementation largely doesn't work - when you get people to supplement, those endpoints don't improve
3. The best sources are sunlight and fish, but people don't eat anywhere enough fish, so getting sunlight 10-15 min a day one or two times a day is probably the best intervention
4. Sunlight actually does age the face and neck, so wear a hat
That's it! The fact that exercise prevents vit D decline is an interesting finding, and I guess chalks up yet another tickmark in the "for the love of god, move your body regularly" column, which has so many tickmarks that it probably outweighs all other possible interventions combined by this point (for depression, for all cause mortality, for diabetes, for CVD and blood pressure, and on and on and on - it's the single biggest thing you can choose to do that touches the most health endpoints positively all at once, and all with moderate to large effect sizes).
Yeah, if you could only recommend one intervention to a large group of people designated as living "unhealthy lifestyles", I expect that "exercise more" would have the greatest impact. Either that or "drink less". A thought experiment for epidemiologists...
Unlike Vitamin C, for instance, adult RDAs for vitamin D are simply extrapolated downward to younger people, because we don't know enough to identify the exact amount below which intake would be suboptimal.
(This is not ideal, but it's the best we can do at the moment.)
"Experts generally agree that supplemental vitamin D is safe in dosages up to 4,000 international units per day during pregnancy or lactation.
If a pregnant woman is found to have a vitamin D deficiency, specialists usually recommend vitamin D supplements of 1000-2000 IU per day, as this is regarded as a safe amount for the unborn child."
We ALL know that people are woefully deficient in Vitamin D because GOOD sun exposure has been vilified for years now. Instead let's slater on the toxic sunscreen and spray it into the air too by the way, to cover what good we can get.
Very interesting take on Vitamin D, I came across that VITAL-Telomere study earlier today but 2000 IU seems a bit high. The conclusion was "potential benefits of vitamin D on biological aging and age-related diseases." This study group was in the "elderly" category that might benefit since they experience decrease production in skin production and and reduction from age-related renal function. So it seems that supplementation is a good idea. They mentioned the need for larger studies with more diverse population. I consider this low evidence but older folks would likely benefit from supplementation. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12020-022-03208-3
Like to make a note that any supplement should have third party lab certification. This is a good guideline.
In terms of exercise, a fat soluble vitamin stored in adipose tissue released with exercise seems logical but we still needed to do the science. Ginger foot pads? Might make me think of a ginger curry dish while attached to my foot.
Thank you.
I will definitely review the VITAL-Telomere RCT in an upcoming newsletter, given the evidence that telomere shortening undermines chromosomal stability and increases the risk of a lot of bad stuff.
I appreciate the comment about lab certification - I'll revise this post in the archive to remind folks that supplements don't necessarily contain what they claim to contain, and at the same time they may contain....a lot of bad stuff.
I would prefer ginger knee pads. Scientists have proven that more toxins leave your body through the knees than the feet. That way they don't have to travel so far. (One more ridiculous statement like that and I'll win an administrative post at HHS. :)
LOL
Some research suggests that high levels of d3 are associated with greater risk of pancreatic/prostate cancer. This risk depends strongly on latitude ie avg uv levels.
There are also reports that calcium metabolism requires less d3 when grain consumption is greatly reduced thus eliminating the need to supplement d3.
Thank you. The studies linking high levels of vitamin D intake to increased risk of pancreatic cancer were intriguing because the researchers had reasons to expect the opposite-i.e., in vitro studies suggesting that vitamin D kills pancreatic cancer cells.
All the same I'm not entirely persuaded by the data, because these studies used case-control designs and I don't think they did a great job of characterizing the dietary and lifestyle practices of those with highest vitamin D intake. In other words, vitamin D intake may not have been the true risk factor.
What is your take on Vieth's old work that suggesrs that it is unsafe to take large irregular doses of vitamin D3? The tissue levels of the active vitamin D are not what are measured by common D3 test.
Also self-reports suggest that sunburn can be largely eliminated by sharply reducing personal exposure to w6 fats.
I had a different impression of Vieth, which is that for several decades he has suggested that upper limits on vitamin D intake are too conservative. He doesn't make Linus Pauling-type claims about the benefits of what most would call excessive intake, but he does seem committed to the notion that the ULs are too low, and he makes his case thoughtfully.
All the same, I would be cautious about exceeding the ULs, because the risk-benefit ratio doesn't look good. The risks of hypercalcemia increase, but there's no clear evidence of mental or physical benefits.
This was a good one, Vitamin D is such a minefield, it's nice to see a well executed study carving out a cobblestone of ground truth that people can support some mental models on.
My basic understanding has been the following for a while:
1. Pretty much everyone is Vitamin D deficient, and deficiencies directly correlate with a number of morbidities (and even all cause mortality)
2. But D supplementation largely doesn't work - when you get people to supplement, those endpoints don't improve
3. The best sources are sunlight and fish, but people don't eat anywhere enough fish, so getting sunlight 10-15 min a day one or two times a day is probably the best intervention
4. Sunlight actually does age the face and neck, so wear a hat
That's it! The fact that exercise prevents vit D decline is an interesting finding, and I guess chalks up yet another tickmark in the "for the love of god, move your body regularly" column, which has so many tickmarks that it probably outweighs all other possible interventions combined by this point (for depression, for all cause mortality, for diabetes, for CVD and blood pressure, and on and on and on - it's the single biggest thing you can choose to do that touches the most health endpoints positively all at once, and all with moderate to large effect sizes).
Yeah, if you could only recommend one intervention to a large group of people designated as living "unhealthy lifestyles", I expect that "exercise more" would have the greatest impact. Either that or "drink less". A thought experiment for epidemiologists...
This is a bit incredible don't you think?
The SAME between age 1 and 70.. What a joke!
"Currently, the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for vitamin D is 15 micrograms (600 IU) per day for healthy individuals between 1 and 70"
Unlike Vitamin C, for instance, adult RDAs for vitamin D are simply extrapolated downward to younger people, because we don't know enough to identify the exact amount below which intake would be suboptimal.
(This is not ideal, but it's the best we can do at the moment.)
https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(25)00255-2/abstract
Thank you. I will definitely comment on this study in some future newsletter.
From the web....
"Experts generally agree that supplemental vitamin D is safe in dosages up to 4,000 international units per day during pregnancy or lactation.
If a pregnant woman is found to have a vitamin D deficiency, specialists usually recommend vitamin D supplements of 1000-2000 IU per day, as this is regarded as a safe amount for the unborn child."
We ALL know that people are woefully deficient in Vitamin D because GOOD sun exposure has been vilified for years now. Instead let's slater on the toxic sunscreen and spray it into the air too by the way, to cover what good we can get.