8 ms·

I'd be interested to see the results broken out by racial group. There is evidence that blacks do not metabolize vitamin D the same way that whites do, and the

I'd be interested to see the results broken out by racial group. There is evidence that blacks do not metabolize vitamin D the same way that whites do, and the standard test for vitamin D concentration does not measure its bioavailability accurately. This could strongly affect the results depending on the racial distribution of participants. In other words this effect could reduce the significance of the results. Here's a popular article on the topic. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/11/20/246393329/how-a-vitamin-d-test-misdiagnosed-african-americans https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/11/20/2463933... though there's plenty of research articles available. The difference is that the test evaluated 25(OH)D concentration, and not 1,25(OH)D which is the useful (metabolized) compound. There is currently no standard test for the latter, which is why they didn't do it. Though I would prefer to see those results, it would be easier at the present time to parameterize the study by racial group to reduce or eliminate this effect. That said it would be nice if we could all just take a nice cheap vitamin for this. Caveat: I am not in life sciences. Edit. They do show a figure which breaks out the relationship by race. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239252.g002 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/... and it is much stronger for African Americans. Perhaps my hypothesis was incorrect.

Kednicma 6y ago
Please knock off this racist shit. All humans metabolize vitamin D in the same way; we all would suffer rickets if not for vitamin D, we all make small amounts of vitamin D with our skin and sunlight but we need more in our diet, etc. The spectrum of skin color does not indicate a massive deficit in vitamin D production or uptake; rather, it is a delicate balancing act between slightly reduced chance of rickets vs. slightly reduced chance of skin cancer. Skin color doesn't guarantee protection from either. The "nice cheap vitamin" you can take daily is fortified milk, if you don't want to take vitamin D supplements directly. We pair vitamin D with vitamin A and calcium in milk in order to try to improve bone development. Edit: Over ten karma lost so far in this thread, for calling out racism and explaining why it's bogus. Thanks HN; you're a huge disappointment.
- beervirus 6y ago
  Facts can’t be racist.
  - tom_ 6y ago
    Didn't you hear him the first time? He said to knock that shit off. Please do so. If you really insist on discussing this subject through this particular lens - reliably poisonous though this has proven to be, almost regardless of subject - there are other venues in which to do it. So you should do it there.
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    You've picked a very stupid hill to defend, but okay. Please share the facts which back up the racist statement "There is evidence that blacks do not metabolize vitamin D the same way that whites do". Please recall, while doing it, that "black" and "white" refer to skin color and not to the pathways which all humans use to absorb calcium in the presence of vitamin D. What a stupid time to be a discount Ben Shapiro. But please, share with the class.
  - godelzilla 6y ago
    Race is not a fact, but racism is. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...
  - jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
    Researchers can be racist. Statisticians can be racist. Publishers can be racist. Just because something bears the shape of truth, does not make it true.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      Facts can’t be racist though.
  - singemonkey 6y ago
    > Facts can’t be racist. As long as they actually are facts, then yes this is true. However, the presentation and choice of which facts to use can be racist, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that.
celticninja 6y ago
I guess someone else accused you of racism, but I don't think your hypothesis is racist, but your wording leaves a lot to be desired. You refer to blacks and whites as if you are talking about chess pieces. There is no binary option that clear cut with people and I am sure if you wanted to you could cut it down into more specific ethnicities that are, or are not, affected by this.
- bXVsbGVy 6y ago
  I think using black is fine, nyt choose the capitalized Black: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black...
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    The NYT usually pairs “Black” with “people”. “Black people” and “blacks” read a little differently.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      Yup, black people and white people still recognises their shared humanity. The use of blacks and whites is divisive.
  - plorg 6y ago
    Black as adjective, sure. Black as a noun, I should think not.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    Black is fine, 'the blacks' or 'the whites' is not. If you are describing someone it is fine to denote their skin colour. It is not fine to encompass a whole group as 'blacks', does this include mixed race people, does it include all BAME groups?
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Not everyone here speaks English as a first language (including me). To me that sort of language policing just seems petty. We all know the point being made.
bXVsbGVy 6y ago
Does it means that those studies that says most people of color in northern hemisphere are vitamin-D deficient not that strongly substantiated? I though people of color produces less vitamin D due the skin pigmentation that filters light in UVB spectrum.
- tzs 6y ago
  Skin pigmentation does affect vitamin D production. There are a few stages between production of vitamin D and the delivery of useful vitamin D to the places where it is needed. The form produced by the skin is not the form needed, so it has to be transformed. The usual test measures vitamin D levels at a particular stage, and then we infer that if the levels are normal at that stage, they will be normal at the final stage too. The problem seems to be that this was calibrated based on the levels in light skinned people, and it is starting to look like the relative levels at the different stages are different in darker skinned people. Think of it not as a dark skinned person's skin produces less than a light skinned person's skin, but rather the light skinned person's skin produces more than the dark skinned person's skin. Their bodies both need the same amount of the final form, and both are able to convert enough to that form, and don't bother converting much more than they need. The result is that the light skinned person has more leftover pre-conversion form. The test measures that pre-conversion form.
kenjackson 6y ago
BTW, as someone who is Black — I didn’t find a single thing in your post racist. It talked about race, but not in a way to oppress or demean any group. At least that was my take.
- brmgb 6y ago
  That's because you are American. As a foreigner, I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough to see meaningful genetic variations relative to another group labeled as "white" somewhat funny and verging on racism (but then again I have been conditioned from childhood to see the word race applied to humans as something deeply racist whereas it is seen as completely innocuous in an American cultural context).
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    > I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough... No, the whole distinction of black is dark skin colour, which is a proxy for skin melanin, which is (far as I'm aware) the primary factor determining vitamin D production from sun exposure (which is not directly useful in the body, but is the form that is often measured). Also, because of the effect on vitamin D production from sun exposure, there is some evidence that other aspects of how vitamin D is handled by the body are different for people with darker skin, maybe because their ancestors got more than enough of it. This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour.
    - singemonkey 6y ago
      I mean, black and dark skin colour are overlapping sets, but the word black doesn't define everyone with dark(er) skin. If you mean darker skin (darker than what???) then use that term. Accuracy is important.
    - kipchak 6y ago
      >This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour. To expand upon this according to an ONS study "Blacks" in England and whales had a 1.9 times higher rate of dying compared to "Whites" after socioeconomic controls, while Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were 1.6 times more likely.[1] This makes sense if you figure lighter skin was a evolved trait for those in latitudes that got less sun. [2] [1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronavirusrelateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to10april2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... [2]https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962
jt2190 6y ago
Just a note that they are estimating race using zip code. I’m not sure you’d want to draw any conclusions from that. > To analyze race/ethnicity, patient data were linked to estimated race/ethnicity proportions reported by zip code in the 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)

Kednicma 6y ago

Please knock off this racist shit. All humans metabolize vitamin D in the same way; we all would suffer rickets if not for vitamin D, we all make small amounts of vitamin D with our skin and sunlight but we need more in our diet, etc. The spectrum of skin color does not indicate a massive deficit in vitamin D production or uptake; rather, it is a delicate balancing act between slightly reduced chance of rickets vs. slightly reduced chance of skin cancer. Skin color doesn't guarantee protection from either. The "nice cheap vitamin" you can take daily is fortified milk, if you don't want to take vitamin D supplements directly. We pair vitamin D with vitamin A and calcium in milk in order to try to improve bone development. Edit: Over ten karma lost so far in this thread, for calling out racism and explaining why it's bogus. Thanks HN; you're a huge disappointment.

beervirus 6y ago
Facts can’t be racist.
- tom_ 6y ago
  Didn't you hear him the first time? He said to knock that shit off. Please do so. If you really insist on discussing this subject through this particular lens - reliably poisonous though this has proven to be, almost regardless of subject - there are other venues in which to do it. So you should do it there.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  You've picked a very stupid hill to defend, but okay. Please share the facts which back up the racist statement "There is evidence that blacks do not metabolize vitamin D the same way that whites do". Please recall, while doing it, that "black" and "white" refer to skin color and not to the pathways which all humans use to absorb calcium in the presence of vitamin D. What a stupid time to be a discount Ben Shapiro. But please, share with the class.
- godelzilla 6y ago
  Race is not a fact, but racism is. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...
- jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
  Researchers can be racist. Statisticians can be racist. Publishers can be racist. Just because something bears the shape of truth, does not make it true.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    Facts can’t be racist though.
- singemonkey 6y ago
  > Facts can’t be racist. As long as they actually are facts, then yes this is true. However, the presentation and choice of which facts to use can be racist, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that.

celticninja 6y ago

I guess someone else accused you of racism, but I don't think your hypothesis is racist, but your wording leaves a lot to be desired. You refer to blacks and whites as if you are talking about chess pieces. There is no binary option that clear cut with people and I am sure if you wanted to you could cut it down into more specific ethnicities that are, or are not, affected by this.

bXVsbGVy 6y ago
I think using black is fine, nyt choose the capitalized Black: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black...
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The NYT usually pairs “Black” with “people”. “Black people” and “blacks” read a little differently.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    Yup, black people and white people still recognises their shared humanity. The use of blacks and whites is divisive.
- plorg 6y ago
  Black as adjective, sure. Black as a noun, I should think not.
- celticninja 6y ago
  Black is fine, 'the blacks' or 'the whites' is not. If you are describing someone it is fine to denote their skin colour. It is not fine to encompass a whole group as 'blacks', does this include mixed race people, does it include all BAME groups?
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Not everyone here speaks English as a first language (including me). To me that sort of language policing just seems petty. We all know the point being made.

bXVsbGVy 6y ago

Does it means that those studies that says most people of color in northern hemisphere are vitamin-D deficient not that strongly substantiated? I though people of color produces less vitamin D due the skin pigmentation that filters light in UVB spectrum.

tzs 6y ago
Skin pigmentation does affect vitamin D production. There are a few stages between production of vitamin D and the delivery of useful vitamin D to the places where it is needed. The form produced by the skin is not the form needed, so it has to be transformed. The usual test measures vitamin D levels at a particular stage, and then we infer that if the levels are normal at that stage, they will be normal at the final stage too. The problem seems to be that this was calibrated based on the levels in light skinned people, and it is starting to look like the relative levels at the different stages are different in darker skinned people. Think of it not as a dark skinned person's skin produces less than a light skinned person's skin, but rather the light skinned person's skin produces more than the dark skinned person's skin. Their bodies both need the same amount of the final form, and both are able to convert enough to that form, and don't bother converting much more than they need. The result is that the light skinned person has more leftover pre-conversion form. The test measures that pre-conversion form.

kenjackson 6y ago

BTW, as someone who is Black — I didn’t find a single thing in your post racist. It talked about race, but not in a way to oppress or demean any group. At least that was my take.

brmgb 6y ago
That's because you are American. As a foreigner, I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough to see meaningful genetic variations relative to another group labeled as "white" somewhat funny and verging on racism (but then again I have been conditioned from childhood to see the word race applied to humans as something deeply racist whereas it is seen as completely innocuous in an American cultural context).
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough... No, the whole distinction of black is dark skin colour, which is a proxy for skin melanin, which is (far as I'm aware) the primary factor determining vitamin D production from sun exposure (which is not directly useful in the body, but is the form that is often measured). Also, because of the effect on vitamin D production from sun exposure, there is some evidence that other aspects of how vitamin D is handled by the body are different for people with darker skin, maybe because their ancestors got more than enough of it. This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour.
  - singemonkey 6y ago
    I mean, black and dark skin colour are overlapping sets, but the word black doesn't define everyone with dark(er) skin. If you mean darker skin (darker than what???) then use that term. Accuracy is important.
  - kipchak 6y ago
    >This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour. To expand upon this according to an ONS study "Blacks" in England and whales had a 1.9 times higher rate of dying compared to "Whites" after socioeconomic controls, while Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were 1.6 times more likely.[1] This makes sense if you figure lighter skin was a evolved trait for those in latitudes that got less sun. [2] [1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronavirusrelateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to10april2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... [2]https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962

jt2190 6y ago

Just a note that they are estimating race using zip code. I’m not sure you’d want to draw any conclusions from that. > To analyze race/ethnicity, patient data were linked to estimated race/ethnicity proportions reported by zip code in the 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)