4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoYeah, 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 agoAre 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 agoI 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 agoThanks. It's hard to balance the strictly scientific with enough of the "softer" stuff to make it interesting for a wide audience.
- KerryJones 6y agoI didn't say anything about strictly scientific. I think statistical/study-based + anecdotal is great.