3 ms·
There is very little evidence for vitamin D supplementation unless tests show you are severely deficient. If you’re replete they do nothing. Getting outside is
by arcticbull 2y ago
There is very little evidence for vitamin D supplementation unless tests show you are severely deficient. If you’re replete they do nothing. Getting outside is significantly more beneficial.
Unless a test shows you’re on the rickets train it’s not going to do much or anything. Basically the same as any other vitamin, if you’re deficient correct the deficiency. If you’re not don’t waste your time.
[edit] also note that in the sun UVB rays cause production of vitamin D while UVA rays cause the release of nitric oxide which lowers blood pressure and improves cardiovascular health. That’s likely a real benefit of going outside separate from the D pathway.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z
- Aachen 2y agoI'm sorry but I'm not sure how this relates to what I wrote. You write "unless tests show" when I already mentioned having a prescription based on blood tests, that taking supplements unnecessarily does no harm (so if you have a similar lifestyle/situation to those who were tested and are known to need it, you might as well right?), and that sunlight generates a second beneficial chemical and so one really should just be going outside when my comment explained there is simply not enough sunlight hitting the skin during the cold months to generate much of anything. I'm genuinely confused how this advice is suppose to be used