4 ms·
>instead While I generally agree, I don't think it's a universal prescription. There are biological defects that inhibit nutrient processing and can require yo
by LMYahooTFY 9y ago
>instead
While I generally agree, I don't think it's a universal prescription. There are biological defects that inhibit nutrient processing and can require you to take considerably more of said nutrient than you could feasibly acquire from diet.
- adventured 9y agoAs one simple example, I burn easily in the sun vs most people I've known. Maintaining healthy blood levels of Vitamin D via the sun, is both risky (cancer) and time consuming for me. It's essentially impossible to fully offset the sun via food-derived VitD. That's especially true if you believe a healthy VitD blood level is closer to 50-70 ng/mL than ~20-40. Vitamin D3 supplements to the rescue. Prior to supplementing, my blood levels were at 5 ng/mL, very dangerously low (despite eating a diet that regularly includes fish and eggs).
- gascan 9y agoThe exception makes the rule; D is the one vitamin I'm aware of whose primary source was never food. Thus, it would not be shocking if food sources were a challenge. An interesting question though- how many IU do you take? What's your absorption rate, and what's the absorption rate from e.g. salmon? I recall hearing, frequently 10% or less of the D in supplement form is actually absorbed.