Hacker News Reader

Comment by ColanR | Hacker News Reader

Right now, I'd rather have a calcium problem than a Covid-19 problem. Also, some of the studies being thrown around in this discussion have mentioned that safe levels of Vitamin D are much higher than a lot of medical professionals actually think.

> there is virtually no risk of toxicity in supplementing up to 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily

https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

View on HN

I read the study that is cited on your link. It was a review article about Vitamin D, not a study on Vitamin D toxicity. And in fact, in the references for that article, there is no study cited directly related to Vitamin D toxicity that I can see. The cutoff at 10K is largely someone's opinion. I cannot say how many people will be harmed by taking such a high dose, but I know with certainty that toxicity at that dose is not rare, because I see it all the time. Some people can take very high doses and be just fine, calcium stays normal. Others will take 5000 units daily and end up with high calcium, and all the symptoms that go along with that (including kidney stones, fatigue, cardiac arrhythmias, etc). Now I am not saying that NO ONE should take high dose Vit D. Some people actually need that high dose, but that is only in the case of someone with very low Vit D and low calcium levels - often in someone who has problems with intestinal absorption, as you would see in someone who had a gastric bypass, for example.

Thanks for the response. I'm curious what your wife thinks about this article [0], mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. It makes the case that the current RDA for Vitamin D is based on a statistical error, and that the recommended dose should be closer to 8000 IU for young adults.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28768407/

FYI, that is the wife/doctor's account you replied to.

dang switched a lot of the comments to her personal username after the fact.

Not OP, but with vitamin D the dosage is actually something you can figure out empirically by testing vitamin D levels and taking supplements.

No one who talks about supplementation seems to think a level of 8000 over a long period is necessary to obtain adequate levels.

I think by the same token the recommended supplement level of 600 IU is inadequate to reach a sufficient level. But the paper in question didn’t test their result empirically.

Correct. It's fairly easy to know whether the dosage you are taking is working, since you can check levels. 8000 units is a really high dose, one that I have never had to give. The article suggests that 98% of people require that much to get to normal levels, which is almost laughable.

8000?? EFSA recommends a reference value of 1000 IU. And a tolerable upper intake level of 4000 IU.

I'm also hesitant to take medical advice from a new account on an internet forum who is disputing medical research. Definitely not saying anything fishy is up, just that we should keep things in perspective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com