4 ms·
To those who only read the HackerNews title and not the title of the actual article, it does not say that Vitamin D does not strengthen bones, but rather higher
by heavymark 7y ago
To those who only read the HackerNews title and not the title of the actual article, it does not say that Vitamin D does not strengthen bones, but rather higher does don't seem to strengthen more than lower doses, not compared to not taking any at all as one would probably interpret from the HackerNews title.
- matthewdgreen 7y agoI don't think "compared to not taking any at all" is an accurate summary here. Even if you never touch a Vitamin D supplement, many people are already getting an amount comparable to the baseline used in this study from a typical diet, or from sun exposure.
- airstrike 7y agoExcept, say, for 6-9 months every year if you're vegan and living in cold climates...
- matthewdgreen 7y ago2/3 of Americans get the RDA of Vitamin D. Picking a specific outlier case for your control group wouldn't make a lot of sense for a scientific study (not to mention, as others have pointed out in this thread, would be difficult or unethical.) If you are a vegan living in a low-sunlight location, look into supplementation.
- airstrike 7y agoSo you're saying 1/3 of Americans don't get the RDA of Vitamin D, yet calling 33% of cases "an outlier" I'm not vegan and I actually take Vitamin D3 supplements, but wanted to point out the flaw in assuming that everyone is in the same bucket as me.
- matthewdgreen 7y agoI'm saying that probably a very tiny percentage of Americans get 0 IU. Which makes 0 IU a very poor choice of a baseline. Since you need some concrete amount to use for your control group, what would you propose using?