34 ms·

I agree about posts from a real doctor, but this is using an anecdotal case as a basis to shift a definition of a vitamin? That seems pretty poor form for someo

I agree about posts from a real doctor, but this is using an anecdotal case as a basis to shift a definition of a vitamin? That seems pretty poor form for someone in the scientific community. We should be shown stats of of likelihood of this happening compared with the opposite, studies, ways it can be safe and not safe (such as with K2, with calcium supplements, etc.) This was not a refreshing read from my standpoint, just feeding the internet echo-chamber.

devaboone 6y ago
This is really interesting. I usually do not use anecdotes, but chose this to make one simple point. The point was not what you got from it, though, which means I failed in my messaging. The point was not to shift a definition (Vitamin D is a steroid hormone, and by definition Vitamin D is NOT in fact a vitamin). The point was that I would like people to think of Vitamin D as a medication, not a dietary supplement. I think when you frame it as a medication, people treat it differently. That was the whole point of the post. In the next post, I will go back to being completely scientific, which is my normal state.
- KerryJones 6y ago
  I appreciate the response but I completely disagree (I wrote a larger post elsewhere). The amount of people who OD on medication and die or otherwise is significantly higher than any of those on Vitamins, let alone Vitamin D3. When an average of 50% of the population (study linked in other post), and a very small fraction of a % of those will every run into problems (which they can address through going to a physician if they have problems), I _do_ consider it a "very little downside". I'm happy to look at data that says otherwise, but from my research I haven't found any.
  - devaboone 6y ago
    The problem is that a lot of people taking Vitamin D may not need it. The percentage of the population with vitamin D deficiency depends on your definition of deficiency - and that changes. From large trials in humans, there is very little benefit to most adults in taking Vitamin D. If you are deficient and you are an elderly woman in a nursing home, then yes, we have good evidence that vit D supplementation will help you. If you are a younger healthy male, probably not.
    - KerryJones 6y ago
      Yeah, definitely. And over 99% of them won't have any problem in doing it. A significant problem is that people don't know that they have conditions or problems in the first place -- and when there is very, very little downside, it would be defined as "optionality" in the terms of Nicholas Taleb, and provides something we can do that will help in most cases, or at least, not harm.
    - lultimouomo 6y ago
      Are you saying that you wouldn't suggest supplementing in young deficient males, who are otherwise healthy, or just that the evidence is unclear on the benefits but it's still probably worth supplementing in that case, under medical supervision?
- fossuser 6y ago
  I wouldn't over index on that comment, I thought your blog post was effective. Strictly scientific is appreciated, but I don't think it'll land as effectively with the audience that most needs to read this kind of thing in the first place.
  - devaboone 6y ago
    Thanks. It's hard to balance the strictly scientific with enough of the "softer" stuff to make it interesting for a wide audience.
  - KerryJones 6y ago
    I didn't say anything about strictly scientific. I think statistical/study-based + anecdotal is great.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
Vitamin D is not actually a vitamin and that is easily googled. You don't have to be a physician to know that. She is absolutely correct that it is a steroid, not a vitamin. Vitamins are things your body cannot manufacture. Vitamin D is something we can manufacture. She's apparently new to blogging and medical blogging is hard and I'm sure she will get better at effectively communicating what she wants to say with a little practice. I agree with you that she shouldn't have stated "It is a medication" and I have stated that elsewhere and she clarified why she chose such phrasing and it's a somewhat minor nitpick because the latter part of the article does make it clear what she is trying to get at.
- devaboone 6y ago
  Thanks! Yes, I am very new to this. Hoping that by continuing to write, I'll get better. The comments on here are great for helping me understand how things are interpreted.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    You will and you've actually been really well received. I wouldn't worry about the occasional negative remark. Those are going to happen and other people can often figure out that it's someone being weirdly pendantic or whatever. Bill Gates has said something about "your unhappiest customers are your best source of learning." I like to view big negative reactions to my writing in that light and help me up my game for future pieces. There are no soft launches and this is all grist for the mill.
- KerryJones 6y ago
  I hadn't actually seen that about Vitamin D, I appreciate you pointing it out. I wasn't arguing anything about it being a steroid -- but the overall intention of the article is to "be careful", is it not? If you "treat it as medication" (even if you're not saying it is), what's the intention of that communication?
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago

devaboone 6y ago

This is really interesting. I usually do not use anecdotes, but chose this to make one simple point. The point was not what you got from it, though, which means I failed in my messaging. The point was not to shift a definition (Vitamin D is a steroid hormone, and by definition Vitamin D is NOT in fact a vitamin). The point was that I would like people to think of Vitamin D as a medication, not a dietary supplement. I think when you frame it as a medication, people treat it differently. That was the whole point of the post. In the next post, I will go back to being completely scientific, which is my normal state.

KerryJones 6y ago
I appreciate the response but I completely disagree (I wrote a larger post elsewhere). The amount of people who OD on medication and die or otherwise is significantly higher than any of those on Vitamins, let alone Vitamin D3. When an average of 50% of the population (study linked in other post), and a very small fraction of a % of those will every run into problems (which they can address through going to a physician if they have problems), I _do_ consider it a "very little downside". I'm happy to look at data that says otherwise, but from my research I haven't found any.
- devaboone 6y ago
  The problem is that a lot of people taking Vitamin D may not need it. The percentage of the population with vitamin D deficiency depends on your definition of deficiency - and that changes. From large trials in humans, there is very little benefit to most adults in taking Vitamin D. If you are deficient and you are an elderly woman in a nursing home, then yes, we have good evidence that vit D supplementation will help you. If you are a younger healthy male, probably not.
  - KerryJones 6y ago
    Yeah, definitely. And over 99% of them won't have any problem in doing it. A significant problem is that people don't know that they have conditions or problems in the first place -- and when there is very, very little downside, it would be defined as "optionality" in the terms of Nicholas Taleb, and provides something we can do that will help in most cases, or at least, not harm.
  - lultimouomo 6y ago
    Are you saying that you wouldn't suggest supplementing in young deficient males, who are otherwise healthy, or just that the evidence is unclear on the benefits but it's still probably worth supplementing in that case, under medical supervision?
fossuser 6y ago
I wouldn't over index on that comment, I thought your blog post was effective. Strictly scientific is appreciated, but I don't think it'll land as effectively with the audience that most needs to read this kind of thing in the first place.
- devaboone 6y ago
  Thanks. It's hard to balance the strictly scientific with enough of the "softer" stuff to make it interesting for a wide audience.
- KerryJones 6y ago
  I didn't say anything about strictly scientific. I think statistical/study-based + anecdotal is great.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

Vitamin D is not actually a vitamin and that is easily googled. You don't have to be a physician to know that. She is absolutely correct that it is a steroid, not a vitamin. Vitamins are things your body cannot manufacture. Vitamin D is something we can manufacture. She's apparently new to blogging and medical blogging is hard and I'm sure she will get better at effectively communicating what she wants to say with a little practice. I agree with you that she shouldn't have stated "It is a medication" and I have stated that elsewhere and she clarified why she chose such phrasing and it's a somewhat minor nitpick because the latter part of the article does make it clear what she is trying to get at.

devaboone 6y ago
Thanks! Yes, I am very new to this. Hoping that by continuing to write, I'll get better. The comments on here are great for helping me understand how things are interpreted.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  You will and you've actually been really well received. I wouldn't worry about the occasional negative remark. Those are going to happen and other people can often figure out that it's someone being weirdly pendantic or whatever. Bill Gates has said something about "your unhappiest customers are your best source of learning." I like to view big negative reactions to my writing in that light and help me up my game for future pieces. There are no soft launches and this is all grist for the mill.
KerryJones 6y ago
I hadn't actually seen that about Vitamin D, I appreciate you pointing it out. I wasn't arguing anything about it being a steroid -- but the overall intention of the article is to "be careful", is it not? If you "treat it as medication" (even if you're not saying it is), what's the intention of that communication?
- DoreenMichele 6y ago