3 ms·

This article is very technical and difficult to read. Is there a TLDR?

by josefritzishere 11mo ago

anamexis 11mo ago
The article's conclusion is straightforward.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  Nicely uninformative, but technically correct.
egman_ekki 11mo ago
Vitamin D good. Higher levels than previously thought.
buildsjets 11mo ago
Eat one small rock per day as important source of vitamins and minerals critical to digestive health.
- danvayn 11mo ago
  This is why I eat fruity pebbles.
- cluckindan 11mo ago
  If poultry or pigeon, eat two per day.
- winternett 11mo ago
  2, they must all build up and grind together in your crop before expulsion for proper results. Wait, we're talking about birds right?
mrguyorama 11mo ago
This article is not technical and is 4 pages and includes a 1 paragraph executive summary. There's only 2 pages of content. There's no specific info about any experiment. It just claims a statistics error was recently found in another paper/experiment. It claims fixing the error suggests we should supplement more Vitamin D. It gestures vaguely at "Diabetes" and "immune health" and "we used to eat fish" to claim that we want/need more blood Vitamin D. It also points to some other actual studies that might have good evidence that we want or need more Vitamin D. I would doubt anything in this could cause harm. Vitamin D is fat soluble so taking too much can be dangerous, but I don't think the recommended doses here are close to that dosage. This paper aims for slightly more than 100nmol/l Vitamin D marker in blood, while other NIH papers claim >375nmol/l is getting into Vitamin D toxicity territory. >https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6158375/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6158375/ NIH previously claimed a serum level of less than 72nmol/l is a health problem, so this paper is bumping that up slightly. My understanding is that large scale tests of Vitamin D supplementation don't ever seem to turn out as great as all these papers would imply. Maybe their experiments had too low a dose. My own supplementation has done jack and shit. Maybe I needed a higher dose. I still hold skepticism that all of humanity needs a supplement, as that's just a sales pitch from a company at that point, but the "Everyone really does need a shitload of Vitamin D supplement" hypothesis at least has a mechanism that makes sense.

This article is very technical and difficult to read. Is there a TLDR?

anamexis 11mo ago

The article's conclusion is straightforward.

IAmBroom 11mo ago
Nicely uninformative, but technically correct.

egman_ekki 11mo ago

Vitamin D good. Higher levels than previously thought.

buildsjets 11mo ago

Eat one small rock per day as important source of vitamins and minerals critical to digestive health.

danvayn 11mo ago
This is why I eat fruity pebbles.
cluckindan 11mo ago
If poultry or pigeon, eat two per day.
winternett 11mo ago
2, they must all build up and grind together in your crop before expulsion for proper results. Wait, we're talking about birds right?

mrguyorama 11mo ago

This article is not technical and is 4 pages and includes a 1 paragraph executive summary. There's only 2 pages of content. There's no specific info about any experiment. It just claims a statistics error was recently found in another paper/experiment. It claims fixing the error suggests we should supplement more Vitamin D. It gestures vaguely at "Diabetes" and "immune health" and "we used to eat fish" to claim that we want/need more blood Vitamin D. It also points to some other actual studies that might have good evidence that we want or need more Vitamin D. I would doubt anything in this could cause harm. Vitamin D is fat soluble so taking too much can be dangerous, but I don't think the recommended doses here are close to that dosage. This paper aims for slightly more than 100nmol/l Vitamin D marker in blood, while other NIH papers claim >375nmol/l is getting into Vitamin D toxicity territory. >https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6158375/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6158375/ NIH previously claimed a serum level of less than 72nmol/l is a health problem, so this paper is bumping that up slightly. My understanding is that large scale tests of Vitamin D supplementation don't ever seem to turn out as great as all these papers would imply. Maybe their experiments had too low a dose. My own supplementation has done jack and shit. Maybe I needed a higher dose. I still hold skepticism that all of humanity needs a supplement, as that's just a sales pitch from a company at that point, but the "Everyone really does need a shitload of Vitamin D supplement" hypothesis at least has a mechanism that makes sense.