Vitamin D Is As Bad In Excess As It Is In Deficiency

[raypeatclips]

This forum gets worse every day lol

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

@raypeatclips, this is quoted from chris kresser's website. Have to dig for the article:

The stimulus for this vitamin D conversation, the most recent one at least, was a new prospective cohort study with over 1.2 million participants, so a pretty big sample size. And this study showed that the lowest mortality or risk of death from all different causes and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease were observed at vitamin 25D levels between 20 ng/mL and 36 ng/mL. That may surprise some of you because as you probably know, in the US the lower end of the lab reference range is 30 ng/mL, so a big chunk of that range where the researchers found that the risk of death and heart disease was the lowest is actually in a range that would be considered deficient by current standards. This isn’t the only study that reached this conclusion. There are actually several other fairly large epidemiological studies that have been done in the past few years that have suggested that the optimal vitamin D level might be much lower than is currently recommended, especially by some of the vitamin D advocacy organizations, like the Vitamin D Council. Some of the other studies, the range was 20 to 30. I think there was one that was 20 to 35, and then one went up to, I think, as high as 40, so it’s all basically in the same range.​

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

@raypeatclips, what's with the attacks? Stay focused man. Just adding some humor. Wasn't trying to ruin your precious forum.

 

[raypeatclips]

@raypeatclips, this is quoted from chris kresser's website. Have to dig for the article:

The stimulus for this vitamin D conversation, the most recent one at least, was a new prospective cohort study with over 1.2 million participants, so a pretty big sample size. And this study showed that the lowest mortality or risk of death from all different causes and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease were observed at vitamin 25D levels between 20 ng/mL and 36 ng/mL. That may surprise some of you because as you probably know, in the US the lower end of the lab reference range is 30 ng/mL, so a big chunk of that range where the researchers found that the risk of death and heart disease was the lowest is actually in a range that would be considered deficient by current standards. This isn’t the only study that reached this conclusion. There are actually several other fairly large epidemiological studies that have been done in the past few years that have suggested that the optimal vitamin D level might be much lower than is currently recommended, especially by some of the vitamin D advocacy organizations, like the Vitamin D Council. Some of the other studies, the range was 20 to 30. I think there was one that was 20 to 35, and then one went up to, I think, as high as 40, so it’s all basically in the same range.​

Chris Kresser said that in 2013. His more recent 2016 article on Vitamin D states optimal levels are 35-60ng/ml.

https://chriskresser.com/vitamin-d-more-is-not-better/

 

[raypeatclips]

@raypeatclips, what's with the attacks? Stay focused man. Just adding some humor. Wasn't trying to ruin your precious forum.

It wasn't an attack honestly, don't worry about it, I've said it before.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

@raypeatclips, you have been digging at me. particularly with your condescending comment about me being "one of those people" who takes a close look at our past. think what you want, but there is a lot from the past that we can learn from.

 

[raypeatclips]

@raypeatclips, you have been digging at me. particularly with your condescending comment about me being "one of those people" who takes a close look at our past. think what you want, but there is a lot from the past that we can learn from.

Yeah that was a bit unnecessary, sorry about that. I won't do it again if you post the studies you mention, deal?

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

that's my point. any study can be found to confirm any bias. I stated earlier that there are no consistent studies that definitively state vitamin d levels need to be in a certain range. if a pill helps you, knock yourself out. again, I fall back on the n=1 paradigm. what works for one, works for none. if you get benefit from vitamin d supplementation, then who am I to tell you your experience is wrong. I can't. That's why health is so anecdotal.

 

[raypeatclips]

that's my point. any study can be found to confirm any bias. I stated earlier that there are no consistent studies that definitively state vitamin d levels need to be in a certain range. if a pill helps you, knock yourself out. again, I fall back on the n=1 paradigm. what works for one, works for none. if you get benefit from vitamin d supplementation, then who am I to tell you your experience is wrong. I can't. That's why health is so anecdotal.

I am genuinely interested in the studies you mention though but then can't find them...

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

sorry, I'm at work. It's the study that chris kresser spoke of. I'm sure I could go into chris's literature cited and dig it up.

 

[Travis]

chris masterjohn has written extensively about vitamin D and every known vitamin D study.

Not likely.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

@Colin Nordstrom gbolduev is that you?

 

[Waynish]

Swedes, who have very, very short, cold winter days in these half-life studies show that summer vitamin D exposure carries them through the winter until the spring when the sun reappears. That's the reality. It makes logical/intuitive sense. How can you explain the excellent health of northern latitude populations when supplementation wasn't even an option? People get what they deserve. You have to make change possible. And it generally doesn't involve cost. Vitamin D, like all supplements, are synthetic crap with no consistent studies backing them. Any substance taken chronically is not good for the body. The body is strengthened in a hormesis paradigm.

You call them synthetic... Are you implying the d3 molecule produced from sun differs from the d3 molecule we're ingesting from supplementation?

 

[Waynish]

@Colin Nordstrom gbolduev is that you?

What a silly question... Writing style is way different... Everyone who disagreed must be the same person? Seems a little paranoid.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

What a silly question... Writing style is way different... Everyone who disagreed must be the same person? Seems a little paranoid.

I wasn't being serious. It was about his disliking of studies.

 

[Waynish]

I wasn't being serious. It was about his disliking of studies.

There's a huge thing today showing how many studies were fraudulent, done under the wrong conditions, or were statistically insignificant. It is a bit daft to jump to the conclusion that anyone questioning along these lines is the same person - especially when one is obviously a native English speaker and the other is not.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

There's a huge thing today showing how many studies were fraudulent, done under the wrong conditions, or were statistically insignificant. It is a bit daft to jump to the conclusion that anyone questioning along these lines is the same person - especially when one is obviously a native English speaker and the other is not.

Like I already told you, I was just being silly.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

@Waynish maybe I just miss gbolduev :3

 

[Mito]

chris masterjohn has written extensively about vitamin D and every known vitamin D study

Masterjohn advocates obtaining a Vitamin D level that (assuming adequate calcium status) maximally suppresses parathyroid hormone. For some that means 30 ng/ml or less and others 50 ng/ml or more.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Yeah, I dislike studies because they mean nothing for the individual. You guys have probably never worked with a real client. Hand them a logbook, track their responses to everything, and watch them get results. Give them some basic dietary guidelines and watch their anecdotal success.

I'll leave it to you guys to sit around with "impressive" studies bending them to whatever conclusion you want. Are studies interesting? Yes. Should a lot of them be taken with a grain of salt? Yes.

Again, correlation does not prove causation. Somehow that keeps getting ignored.