
Is vitamin D really a cure-all, and how should we get our fix? - pmoriarty
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/is-vitamin-d-really-a-cure-all-and-how-should-we-get-our-fix
======
skosch
Related: a 9-year, n=25871 study looking at long-term health outcomes of blind
Vitamin D/Omega 3/placebo supplementation just ended and will have results out
this summer.

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259)

~~~
daveguy
That is awesome that you were able to get funding for a large study of vitamin
supplements. I wish there were more studies like this to identify whether
supplements are beneficial beyond placebo (or potentially harmful).

One question: blind or double blind? Does the distributor also not know which
product is being given to the patient?

I look forward to the results!

~~~
carver
The link said triple blind, technically -- ”Masking: Triple (Participant,
Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)”

~~~
daveguy
Thank you. The tables were screwy on my phone.

------
trhway
Vitamin D deficiency and autism - Somali immigrants (very dark skinned, and
thus northern Sun is too weak for them to cause generation of enough vitamin D
plus they have more skin surface covered by clothing in Sweden compare to what
it was back in Somali) in Minnesota and Sweden have very low, sometimes
undetectable, vitamin D levels and high (compare to Somalis in Somali as well
as to other populations around them in Sweden or Minnesota) autism rates of
children born in immigration there.

Another Swedish study, non immigrant related, found a pattern of higher autism
rates among children whose 3rd trimester was during winter. For illustration -
brain formation during 3rd trimester -
[http://www.brainfacts.org/-/media/Brainfacts2/Archives/Artic...](http://www.brainfacts.org/-/media/Brainfacts2/Archives/Article-
Images/Technologies-Atlases.ashx)

~~~
code51
Looks like difference of vitamin D levels were not significant in the 2010
study between mothers of Somali origin with or without a child with autism.
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.01755.x/full)

Do you have another source for the statement in the first paragraph?

~~~
trhway
>between mothers of Somali origin with or without a child with autism

"increasing chances" and "necessarily leading to" are 2 different things.
Consider for example smoking and cancer - among people who smoke the same
amount of tobacco some will get cancer, some will not. That doesn't falsify
the fact that smoking increases the chances of the cancer.

You link is actually enough here. From your link :

"Results: Between 12 and 17 mothers from the different groups accepted to
participate, both groups of mothers of Somali origin had significantly lower
values of 25-hydroxyvitamin D compared with Swedish mothers. "

So, i'm not sure what of the 2 well established facts you are arguing against
:

1\. Somalis in Sweden have very low D

2\. Somali children born in Sweden have much higher autism rate.

Of course correlation isn't necessarily causation, yet the correlation (both -
between populations as well as inside the Somali mothers population) is
clearly stated in your link (have you read it yourself?) :

"Conclusion: Our findings of low vitamin D levels in Somali women entail
considerable consequences in a public health perspective. The observed
tendency, i.e. the lowest values in mothers of Somali origin with a child with
autism was in the predicted direction, supporting the need for further
research of vitamin D levels in larger samples of Somali mothers of children
with and without autism."

~~~
code51
I wasn't trying to argue against. Just trying to understand better.

1\. Yes, Somalis in Sweden have very low D. That is quite obvious [from Table
1] after winter.

2\. Yes, Somali children born in Sweden have higher rate (according to this
study: 17 in 2437 [0.7%] for Somali background, 484 in 250565 [0.19%] for non-
Somali):
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03036.x/full)

However we should also consider the effect of other compounding factors about
parents coming from Somali.

Here:
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-017-3232-z](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-017-3232-z)

"Results lend support to previous studies that found higher rates of ASD
intellectual disability in children of immigrants from low human resource
index countries compared to other groups."

coming from Somali also means coming from a low human resource index country.
all kinds of air/water pollutants and chemicals/pesticides might be at play
-together with- vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D effect itself is hard to isolate from just this. Further studies
need additional data about these other factors (air pollution, exposed
chemicals etc)

~~~
trhway
>"Results lend support to previous studies that found higher rates of ASD
intellectual disability in children of immigrants from low human resource
index countries compared to other groups."

>coming from Somali also means coming from a low human resource index country.
all kinds of air/water pollutants and chemicals/pesticides might be at play
-together with- vitamin D deficiency.

>Vitamin D effect itself is hard to isolate from just this.

If anything, your link confirms vitamin D theory even more :) What is the most
common trait for all these low human resource index countries? They are closer
to equator, i.e darker skin of the population.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)

It is very well established epidemiological fact that darker skin immigrants
have noticeably lower vitamin D in higher altitudes (i.e where the higher
developed countries are that they immigrate into).

~~~
code51
If by "theory" you mean "darker skin in higher altitudes -> low vitamin D", I
don't have anything against that.

If by "theory" you mean "low vitamin D -> autism", you're reading science
wrong (by only using correlation when reasoning about it). You have to control
for other factors in Somali population. That's how you do proper research. In
its current form, as the researchers themselves point out, this says that a
future study is needed.

Let me repeat: you might be entirely right but "this correlation supports the
theory better" is not scientific evidence. It's just a hint to direct
research.

As I said, if they find Swedish mothers with really low vitamin D and compare
with Swedish mothers with high vitamin D, that would say a lot more.

------
stevenkovar
I would recommend reading this article about the connection between vitamins
D, A, and K, and how they inter-play with one another:
[https://www.precisionnutrition.com/stop-
vitamin-d](https://www.precisionnutrition.com/stop-vitamin-d)

It was pretty eye-opening (and alarming) when I read it.

In short: While Vitamin D is great for everyone, your body will begin lacking
in vitamins A and K because of the effects of D (too much of a good thing,
essentially). It's all about finding the right balance for yourself.

Snippet from the closing:

1\. Get enough vitamin D… but not too much. Doses of around 1,000 IUs per day
— even as high as 2,000 IUs a day in the winter months when you’re not exposed
to much sunlight — are likely safe. Especially when other key nutrients are
included, such as vitamin K, vitamin A, and magnesium. You can ensure you are
getting enough of these by taking a quality multi-vitamin.

2\. Support vitamin D’s work Remember that other nutrients act together with
vitamin D. Consume a wide variety of minimally processed foods to help get
vitamin D’s nutritional colleagues such as magnesium, vitamin A, and vitamin
K.

Eat your greens and fermented foods. Dark leafy greens — such as kale,
spinach, or Swiss chard — are good sources of vitamin K1. They’re also high in
dietary magnesium. Fermented veggies such as sauerkraut along with eggs, meats
(especially organ meats such as liver) and fermented/aged cheeses are good
sources of vitamin K2.

Eat the rainbow. The carotenoid form of vitamin A is found in colorful fruits
and veggies. Eggs, butter, full-fat dairy (such as cheese) and organ meats are
also great sources of the active retinol form of vitamin A.

Keep your intestinal flora happy and healthy. Vitamin K conversion happens in
the GI tract. So eat plenty of fermented foods and prebiotic fiber, consider a
probiotic supplement, and avoid antibiotics unless absolutely necessary
(research has found that broad-spectrum antibiotics can reduce K production by
up to 75%).

Review all medications and supplements with your doctor and/or pharmacist.
Many medications, such as corticosteroids like Prednisone, weight loss drugs
like Orlistat, cholesterol-blocking drugs like statins, and/or high blood
pressure drugs like thiazide diuretics can disrupt the delicate balance of
vitamin and mineral regulation in the body. Make sure you know all the side
effects and interactions of any medications (or “healthy” supplements) you are
taking.

~~~
JoshMnem
> taking a quality multi-vitamin

I try to be cautious with vitamins. It appears that taking them in pill form
might not be safe. I switched to a high-nutrient diet that focuses on getting
nutrients from food wherever possible.

Some examples of cases where vitamins that are beneficial in food form might
be dangerous in extracted form:

Vitamin E and the Risk of Prostate Cancer:
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1104493](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1104493)

Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women:
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1105975)

Death Stalks Smokers in Beta-Carotene Study: [https://www.webmd.com/smoking-
cessation/news/20041130/death-...](https://www.webmd.com/smoking-
cessation/news/20041130/death-stalks-smokers-in-beta-carotene-study#1)

~~~
mtgx
I haven't checked the others, but in the first one they seem to have given
people 400 IU Vitamin E, which is equivalent to 180mg synthetic Vitamin E or
12x the RDA for Vitamin E. And they did that for 7-12 years straight. Also,
the increase in cancer risk doesn't seem that significant if I'm reading the
results right.

I'm not a fan of multivitamins that go crazy over the RDA _unless_ I know the
RDA number is way too low to begin with (like in Vitamin D's case). It's also
an especially bad idea to go crazy over RDA with _fat-soluble_ vitamins,
because those are the ones that are stored in your body for longer periods of
time. At least the water-soluble ones come out when you pee, but I think
there's some new evidence that even some of those is stored or at least it may
not be a good idea to "mega-dose" on them.

~~~
JoshMnem
Some vitamin E supplements have 1000 IUs. See my other comment in this thread.

------
rdl
I went to an eye doctor due to blurry vision and dry eyes last year; he
suggested both Vitamin D and Demodex (which kills mites which live in eyelash
follicle roots).

I took the blood test for Vitamin D (25-hydroxy) and I was something around 7,
where the desired number is more like 20-50. Started taking 10k-20k IU of
Vitamin D per day (plus K and also a range of other daily vitamins added at
the same time), as well as a 4 or 8 dose course of demodex over 2-3 weeks, and
both problems were resolved within a month. Apparently low D causes the cornea
to sag so the lens itself is out of shape and thus astigmatic.

~~~
jesalg
This is interesting, my wife experienced something exactly the opposite. She
started taking Vitamin D couple of years ago since she was quite deficient
just like you. After a year or so of 5k IU daily, she started experiencing
severe eye issues, including daily crust buildup, irritation, redness, and
blepharitis.

We tried all sorts of drops and cleaning regimes to no avail. She went for
another blood test and learned her Vitamin D levels were through the roof
(somewhere around 90+). She immediately stopped the Vitamin D supplements and
after a few weeks, all her eye issues were gone!

Goes to show we definitely need some good studies examining long-term Vitamin
D intake.

~~~
tomatsu
5,000 IU per day is an excessively high dose.

4,000 IU is the upper limit. 2K is high.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D)

~~~
Joakal
I read that people get 10,000 - 20,000 IU from 30 minutes in sun. With that,
wouldn't that make the upper limit dangerously low?

~~~
tomatsu
4,000 IU per day is the recommended supplement limit.

You can synthesize 1000 IU from 10 minutes in the sun if... you're young, have
light skin (of which most is visible), don't wear sunscreen, it's the middle
of the day & summer, and you're lying down to get roasted.

4,000 IU is equivalent to getting burnt to a crisp.

~~~
YokoZar
This is off by a factor of 10. You get between 10,000 and 25,000 IU in just a
little under the time your skin takes to burn.
[https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-
get...](https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-
vitamin-d-my-body-needs/)

You are very unlikely to develop excess vitamin D unless you supplement more
than 10,000 per day for months, and typically not even then unless you exceed
40,000 per day via supplements. [https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-
vitamin-d/am-i-getting...](https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/am-
i-getting-too-much-vitamin-d/)

Additionally, if you supplement or take K2 with vitamin D, the risks are
substantially mitigated (Vitamin D adds calcium ions to things, K2 takes them
out).

------
spuz
There was good discussion around a study that showed recommended amounts of
Vitamin D were much too low. Many people have reported benefits of taking
supplements:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15867918](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15867918)

~~~
askee
Wasn't the mostly unanimous agreement in this thread that this paper was of
low quality and its conclusions are questionable at best?

------
leg100
I'm not going to wait for a study to show evidence. The evidence is only as
good as the study, and this is very hard thing to setup a study for, given the
many years they'd need to study subjects and as someone else pointed out on
here, its systemic nature makes it hard to pinpoint.

The explanatory arguments are more than sufficient: skin colour corresponds to
the availability of sunlight - with the exception of dark-skinned Inuits who
maintain a fish based diet - which indicates the importance of vitamin D to
survival.

Only in the modern era do we now spend more time inside than outside, which
could be an explanation for increasing incidence of diseases.

As for this ridiculous quote:

> And as Adrian Martineau, clinical professor of respiratory infection and
> immunity at Queen Mary University of London, points out, even in the summer,
> “sunshine isn’t going to be the answer, especially because there is an
> associated risk of skin cancer.”

No, sunshine is the answer. The risk of skin cancer is elevated if you get
sunburnt, if you expose your pale skin suddenly to the sun in the height of
summer. Nobody is suggesting you do that. Build up a tan gradually throughout
the year, follow common sense.

~~~
nabla9
>The risk of skin cancer is elevated if you get sunburnt, if you expose your
pale skin suddenly to the sun in the height of summer

This is very common skin cancer myth that can be debunked by few minutes of
googling.

Any change in your natural skin color is a sign of skin damage and that damage
is cumulative. Getting a tan is a sign of damage. Total UV dose you build up
over time, rather than getting sunburnt, matters most (Sunburn is used as a
proxy for skin cancer risk because it is related to individual sun sensitivity
and UV exposure).

UV radiation is complete carcinogen. It's both a mutagen and a non-specific
damaging agent. It's both tumor initiator and a tumor promoter. Three most
common types of skin cancer are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) , squamous cell
carcinoma (SCC) and malignant melanoma. Chronic cumulative exposure is
associated with BCC and SCC and melanoma with sunburns and childhood exposure
but melanoma may develop through multiple pathways.

~~~
mancerayder
Intuitively, based on what you're saying people around the Mediterranean (to
take one region with a lot of Sun) should be dropping like flies due to these
dangers you outline. Why don't they have a mortality rate affected by skin or
other cancers? The Anglo world has been studying their diets due to the
opposite perception.

~~~
nabla9
> Why don't they have a mortality rate affected by skin or other cancers?

What makes you assume that they don't?

Burden of cancer in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 2005–2015: findings from
the Global Burden of Disease 2015.
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-017-0999-9](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-017-0999-9)

~~~
pm
It doesn't say how much of that is associated with skin cancer, which is the
cancer you're talking about.

------
zxcb1
The rationale is quite simple. The body needs sunlight to produce the vitamin.
Without adequate sunlight there will be a deficiency and need of a substitute.
The supplements aren’t magic, its the removal of systemic health effects
caused by deficiency. I rather find that the studies deal with how severe
these effects are and the systemic nature makes it hard to pin point. However,
I don’t even understand why this has been contested for such a long time.

~~~
fyfy18
How did societies in northern regions historically get enough vitamin D? Yes
they would have spend more time outdoors than we do now, but they’d also be
mostly covered to keep themselves warm, so even on a rare day when it’s sunny
they wouldn’t get much exposure.

~~~
pandaman5588
They ate a lot of fish, at least in northern Europe

------
dm319
This is probably one of the most authoritative source on whether Vit D is good
for you [1]. I was never much of a believer, but this article prompted me to
reinvestigate it, and I'm surprised to see that there is an effect if you're
looking at elderly adult population.

Also, as others have mentioned, there is such a thing as too much - taking too
much can affect the balance of your other vitamin levels. There was a nice
trial on beta-carotene which showed it increasing mortality which was very
unexpected, but made sense once people understood the biochemical pathways
better.[2]

[1]
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007470...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007470.pub3/abstract)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20155614](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20155614)

------
steelframe
FWIW, here's an anecdote from someone with an auto-immune disorder. I've had
MS (multiple sclerosis) for 20 years. In that time, I've lived in 7 different
climates for a year or longer each. I didn't get my first symptoms until I
moved to northern Europe during the winter. The times that I've had no disease
progression, I was closer to the equator. For example, I had no issues at all
in the 5 years I lived in central Texas. The times I've had disease
progression, I've been further north (above the 37th parallel). Since I'm
currently living in the 47th parallel, I take 10,000 I.U. of Vitamin D a day.
The one time I've had a serious increase in disease activity while living
here, I tried taking a year off the Vitamin D supplements because I thought my
medication was sufficient.

~~~
trhway
googling myelin and vitamin D does bring a bunch of info in that direction,
for example :

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27764518](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27764518)

"In the central nervous system (CNS) the main proteins of myelin are
proteolipid protein (PLP), myelin basic protein (MBP), myelin oligodendrocyte
glycoprotein (MOG) and CNPase.

[...]

The mice were treated by cuprizone for five weeks in order to induce
demyelination.

[...]

a significant increase in the MOG and CNPase expression was seen in vitamin D
injected group as compared to SHAM and control groups. It is concluded that
vitamin D plays a role in the process of remyelination by increasing MOG and
CNPase expression in the cortex."

------
batterseapower
Recommendations for vitamin D seem to be a bit of a trend recently, but the
evidence for their efficacy does not necessarily seem to be there.

Meta-analysis suggests that supplementation in vitamin-D deficient populations
does not reduce cancer, fractures, cardiovascular problems or all cause
mortality
([http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213858713...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213858713702122),
[https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/96/7/1931/2833735](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/96/7/1931/2833735)).

One limitation of this research is that most studies are done with fairly low
doses (700-800 IU is common). However, those few studies that look at higher
doses (5000-1000IUs) you don't necessarily see any better signs. On the
contrary, there is some evidence that high doses seem to be associated with
e.g. higher risk of falls and fractures in elderly patient populations
([https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185854](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185854),
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2478897)).

~~~
WalterSear
Fwiw, there is mounting opinion and evidence that vitamin D recommendations
need to increase by an order of magnitude, essentially casting those levels as
experiments in vitamin D deficiency.

>A statistical error in the estimation of the recommended dietary allowance
(RDA) for vitamin D was recently discovered; in a correct analysis of the data
used by the Institute of Medicine, it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for
97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L. Another study confirmed
that 6201 IU/d was needed to achieve 75 nmol/L and 9122 IU/d was needed to
reach 100 nmol/L.

>The largest meta-analysis ever conducted of studies published between 1966
and 2013 showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <75 nmol/L may be too low for
safety and associated with higher all-cause mortality, demolishing the
previously presumed U-shape curve of mortality associated with vitamin D
levels....

>This could lead to a recommendation of 1000 IU for children <1 year on
enriched formula and 1500 IU for breastfed children older than 6 months, 3000
IU for children >1 year of age, and around 8000 IU for young adults and
thereafter. Actions are urgently needed to protect the global population from
vitamin D deficiency.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541280/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541280/)

------
nabla9
Just like with other fat soluble vitamins, there is evidence that there is
optimal level and U-shaped correlation with risks.

There is a U-shaped association between vitamin D concentrations and total
mortality[1], inflammatory markers[2], etc. but more studies are needed[3] to
be sure.

\--

[1]: Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based
prospective cohort study.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20720256](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20720256)

[2]: Association between serum vitamin D concentrations and inflammatory
markers in the general adult population.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24928661](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24928661)

[3]: Do studies reporting ‘U’-shaped serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D–health outcome
relationships reflect adverse effects?
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951179/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951179/)

------
open-source-ux
The NHS website has just published an informative and easily readable review
of recent research on vitamin D and cancer.

 _Vitamin D may reduce the risk of some cancers_ :
[https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/vitamin-d-may-reduce-risk-
som...](https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/vitamin-d-may-reduce-risk-some-
cancers/)

------
batter
If you live in US and your insurance Blue Cross don't expect them to cover
your vitamin D level test: [https://www.horizonblue.com/providers/news/news-
legal-notice...](https://www.horizonblue.com/providers/news/news-legal-
notices/medical-policy-revision-vitamin-d-testing)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
This is for patients _without_ symptoms. They'll cover it if you come in
feeling ill and your doctor orders a diagnostic test. They will also likely
cover the follow-up testing for vitamin D. Testing for testing's sake is what
is not covered.

------
jlnthws
As with most supplements, ask your doctor. Do a blood test every year. Maybe
see a nutritionist.

Vitamin D is ambivalent: as said in the article, it helps calcium absorption
so if you're too low on vitamin D you might be too low on calcium and thus
have frequent cramps and what not. But if you're a little too high on vitamin
D and consume your fair share of calcium, then calcium absorption could be too
high and you'll end up with premature atherosclerosis and other vascular
issues.

See
[https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/27/5/1704/1844110](https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/27/5/1704/1844110)

------
hanley
I've had success taking a combination of vitamins D3 and K2 in liquid dropper
form. I noticed the benefits more than when I was just taking capsules of D3.

Interestingly, I've managed to avoid getting a seasonal cold this year unlike
most of my coworkers and friends, and my guess is that the D3/K2 has helped
with that because I haven't changed much else.

~~~
behohippy
Purely anecdotal, but same story here. D3 only, vegetarian. I can't think of a
single point in my life where I didn't get sick (cold/flu), if I was
surrounded by sick people. This year, 8 sick people in my house and extended
exposure with my wife sick for two weeks. I'm still fine.

~~~
throwawaysc5
> Purely anecdotal, but...

It’s not just anecdotal, it’s bad reasoning. You can’t prove that your
supplement prevented you from getting sick. Maybe you were immune to whatever
was going around. Maybe you didn’t touch your face at the right times. Maybe
you washed your hands really well. There are thousands of possible
explanations, and it’s misleading and wrong to attribute it to some random
supplement.

Please stop doing that. It’s the same reasoning people use when they say that
they prayed and God answered. Just because B happens after A doesn’t mean that
A caused B; it just means B happened after A.

~~~
bitL
> Just because B happens after A doesn’t mean that A caused B; it just means B
> happened after A.

This is where you committed a fallacy for a change. Next time be more careful!
With this kind of thinking you'd rule out any causality.

------
metmirr
When I was a kid my father told me to get sunshine as much as I can do I
wouldn’t be sick easily during cold weather. So I understand him now.

------
amelius
Does anyone know how problematic a "bad" SNP in the VDR Taq gene is?
(VDR=vitamin D receptor)

~~~
nmerouze
I am VDR Taq positive and from what I gathered as long as you check your
vitamin D levels from time to time and supplement accordingly it shouldn't be
an issue. Also there are co-factors for sulfation of vitamin D like zinc, B6,
DAO, lysine so you need to check those too. It becomes more complex when, like
me, you also have mutations that makes B6 and zinc less abundant.

------
taksintikk
Sunlight ftw.

~~~
Malic
Very true but depending on what latitude you live at, it may be impossible to
get enough on sunlight alone. There's dermatologist that claims a link between
latitude and mortality:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_go...](https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_good_for_your_heart)

Recommended watching - there is more to sunlight than Vitamin-d.

------
nugi
Rant time:

Go outside more. Take 15 min with your shirt off in the sun. In some areas of
the world this can be a true challenge, but cold exposure has its own
benefits. It will boost mood, improve eyesight, and process vit D. Skin cancer
is real, but unless you are getting burnt to the point of peeling or blisters,
there is virtually zero risk as an adult. A good tan won't make you look like
a lifelong smoker. Just beware akward tanlines, and curious neighbors when
trying to eliminate said tanlines.

~~~
watty
I had a cancerous mole removed in 2013 (melanoma stage 1a) and my
dermatologist basically told me tanning is NOT ok and was never ok.

"There is no such thing as a healthy suntan. Any change in your natural skin
color is a sign of skin damage. Evidence suggests tanning greatly increases
your risk of developing skin cancer. The increase in skin pigment called
melanin, which causes your skin to tan, is a sign of damage. Once skin is
exposed to UV radiation, it increases the production of melanin in an attempt
to protect the skin from further damage. The increase in melanin may cause
your skin tone to darken over the next 48 hours."

[https://www.asds.net/10-Skin-Cancer-Myths-
Debunked/](https://www.asds.net/10-Skin-Cancer-Myths-Debunked/)

~~~
kolbe
You shouldn't tan, but you also shouldn't avoid the sun all together. 15
minutes in the sun with your shirt off every other day doesn't even give me a
tan or burn, and I'm the palest person I know.

