I didn't know I was lacking in Vitamin D until I collapsed at work
bbc.com
bbc.com
I’ve since observed that when I run out of vitamin D or forget to take it for several days, my mood slowly declines again. Resumption of vitamin D reverses this.
I did not go into this with any knowledge of such an effect. And the vitamin D influence is stronger in this regard than what I’ve experienced from any (legal) drug. That said, it’s hardly overwhelming. Just a bit more resilience and a bit of protection from feeling overwhelmed.
I now take it in combination with K2 as I’ve heard/read K2 helps keep too much of your calcium from being mobilized by the vitamin D.
The D3 isomer is said to be significantly more bio-available than D1 and D2. And, overdosing does have significant negative consequences over time. So, do your research — and I’m not going to suggest any specific dosages.
But after largely negative experiences with what the pharmaceutical industry has to offer, D3 has been an inexpensive and valuable contribution to my well-being.
Normally, as well as food sources, your body naturally produces Vitamin D as a reaction to sunlight (being outdoors), and not having sufficient time outdoors, especially in a pleasant/nature environment, may be contributing to depression.
Link between Vitamin D and depression has been known for a long time. It is not a new finding.
> your body naturally produces Vitamin D as a reaction to sunlight (being outdoors), and not having sufficient time outdoors, especially in a pleasant/nature environment, may be contributing to depression.
At higher latitudes, it is extremely difficult to produce Vitamin D from sunlight unless you expose your entire torso(without a shirt). If you have dark skin, you need 2x or 3x more time.
Again, there is extensive literature on this, you just have to read it instead of speculating.
The link has been disputed for as long.
> Again, there is extensive literature on this, you just have to read it instead of speculating.
There you go:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4008710/
"Although low vitamin D levels have been observationally associated with depression and depressive symptoms, the effect of vitamin D supplementation as an antidepressant remains uncertain."
I'm not saying you should stop taking it. If it works for you - great. But don't get annoyed at people who point out that the link is tenuous at best.
(Incidentally, it did nothing to improve my mood - but I continue to take it for its other health benefits. I was in the severe depletion zone, and brought it up to mid-normal.)
I am not sure whether they compensated for BMI or used sufficient dosage. A 2000 IU/day might not be sufficient as the amount required depends on the current level and BMI.
From studies we know, Vitamin D accumulates in fat cells before it is available for bodily functions, so unless the dosage was adjusted for BMI, the experiment might not have been done on an equal footing for all participants.
How do we know that Vitamin D accumulates in fat cells? When someone loses weight, the Vitamin D level improves dramatically despite not having ingested any Vitamin D or made from sunlight.
One could say depressed people stay in bed all day and don't go outside and get sunlight, thus low vit d
Australia has seemingly taken the lead on advice (re vitamin d or skin cancer risks) that's based on skin color.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-13/sun-safety-position-s...
Traditionally, health notes always just assume you're a white male.
I would expect that regularly being outside (for practice) and a normal balanced diet would be sufficient to at least get by in a country like the UK. Some depressive/lower energy symptoms during winter time, maybe, but nothing so severe as collapsing.
Shouldn't this problem show up in a much larger portion of the population? Or do very physically active individuals require more Vitamin D?
I would think that there must be something about these individuals, aside from being dark skinned, that makes them more prone to issues.
From https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-...
They list oily fish, red meat, egg yolks, fortified foods, and liver. I can see some diets not having those.
IIUC, yes they do. They don’t “spend it” as such, they require higher serum levels overall (compared to sedative individuals, all else equals).
https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/food-and-nutrition...
You ever heard of a thing called a "clickbait headline"?
Casual awareness of studies on this suggest that it DOES show up but the symptoms (lowered immune function, seasonal depression, bone issues) are generic and subtle enough to fly under the radar.
It is not helped that, in my experience, many US health plans do not cover the cost of vitamin D testing without a diagnosis of deficiency (which generally requires a test). While that cost is usually low it does mean that it tends not to be offered because practices tend to avoid non-covered procedures for administrative and billing reasons-- you have to actually ask your physician to do the test.
My understanding is that it is somewhat difficult to end up at serum levels of vitamin D that create actual problems, so in general my not-medical-advice suggestion would be to ask your physician about taking a supplement: they're cheap and if everyone took them it is likely population-level health would improve, and it may dramatically improve your QoL particularly in winter months.
Here in MN, we have a very large population of Somali immigrants. Their children, born in MN, have a higher prevalence of autism than the ones born in Somalia. To the extent that the community has begun to call it "the Minnesota disease."
Not necessarily an eating disorder, but there is high likelihood she is on some sort of diet regime. My money would be on low blood sugar lighting the fire on the vitamin D deficiency. I have seen more than a few "fit" marathon types collapse after missing/skipping a meal. They just don't have the reserves.
It is not yet the beginning of November and sunset in London is at around 4:37pm. An hour and a quarter earlier than New York. It will be like this or darker until February.
Sun intensity by the middle of the day even on a bright day like today is not very high. For example, compared to New York, the sun intensity at noon on the clearest possible day at the beginning of November is about half as strong. Compared to LA, getting closer to a third.
We also eat fewer carrots than we used to! And we're increasingly deficient in selenium for food globalism reasons; selenium and vitamin D are synergistic AFAIR?
A fair number of people will have been rescued from vitamin D deficiency by the incredible summer we have had, but it is absolutely a thing and we do not hear enough about it.
The article even says explicitly:
> While her symptoms are not directly linked to vitamin D deficiency
I find the risk-award very clear: if you are not deficient, taking normal* amount of Vitamin D supplement has no adverse effects; but if you are deficient, the risk is quite high.
*: The normal amount is 600 IU. The recommended upper limit is 4000 IU. The gap is wide.
https://mitohealth.com/products/vitamin-d-25-hydroxy-calcidi...
Is there an non-lab way to know if you're vitamin D deficient?
Also old or dark skinned? Double yes.
I started taking a D3 and K2 supplement and a year later on my next test I tested in the normal range. Didn't notice any changes from taking the supplement, but it probably doesn't hurt to have it in my body if my body needs it.
That being said, I would test. No sense in having too much.
Getting it from mushrooms becomes expensive and quite a chore.
Forgive me, I have no link, I feel like medical and nutrition advice changes 180 daily.
Does this ring a bell to anyone?
It's like the people who attack grammar in arguments instead of the core point. I've seen enough people doing this across the Internet to know the reason they do it. And it has everything to do with being a smug asshole and nothing to do with helping.
At least I’m clearly human
Right, but nobody's taking supplements to see number go up. They're after some health benefit, of which evidence is scarce.
There “mood” and all that, but placebo has a heavy affect here.
The more direct question is how lifespan and cancer rate track between:
High D levels via supplementation and low sun exposure
High D levels via no supplementation and high sun exposure
Low D levels with low sun exposure
Low D levels with high sun exposure
(And of course those between)
The goal is to determine whether D itself is improving longevity and cancer rate, which would be implied by improved metrics in the group with high supplementation and low sun exposure. If this group doesn’t fare better, the D levels may be a misleading indicator of health, and those living longer with high D levels are doing so because of their increased sun exposure (as opposed to the raw blood D level offered by supplementation)
I think you may be referring to how D isn't a primary treatment for SAD. It certainly doesn't hurt to get more D in the winter for a lot of other reasons, but SAD is primarily treated via light boxes or anti-depressants.
That being said, vitamin D levels are slowly becoming the new "have you thought about losing some weight" in medicine. Being low on it isn't great, but its not the cause of the health problems people complain about.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2202106 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwed/article/PIIS2213-8... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24445737/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26992108/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290997/
It’s really hard to believe that all the benefit of the sun can be achieved in a single pill.
My family just switched to sunrise simulation alarm clock lights, and I'll start squirting vitamin D in my coffee milk soon.
In Europe, winter darkness is a bitch. Don't take chances with your health.
Isn't that more complicated and way less precise in dosage than just taking a pill every day (or a higher dose one every week)?
edit: the precision comes from getting blood levels measured after supplementation.
But the trouble with supplementing Vitamin D is that you are treating a symptom. A Vitamin D deficiency usually indicates that you need to touch grass, get outdoors, do some exercise. Since the physician and clinic profit by $0 when they recommend those things, they prescribe you a pill instead. Which idea is a better solution?
People are usually supplementing Vitamin D during the time of the year where there's essentially zero UV light outdoors
Okay look, we are still talking about a symptom and not a disorder. Clearly, the subject of TFA is an aberration, being a football player, ostensibly active and exercising and being outdoors on the regular.
But most people diagnosed with deficiency are not doing any of that.
It really doesn't matter if they're making Vitamin D or whether they're being exposed to UV at all. You could be working in a post in Antarctica, and either you're at a desk job where you're sitting all day and not exercising, or you're working in a storeroom and running around outside doing highly physically demanding things and getting proper exercise. The doctor is clearly going to be concerned about the former person, but what are the indicators?
The people with low Vitamin D need to be retested and monitored during bright summer months to see if the deficiency persists. They need to be up-front about their activities and whether they're exercising properly and getting fresh air at all. The point is not the D nor the UV at all, but the D is what the physicians can detect, and the D is what they will prescribe when it goes off the rails, but what people actually, really need is not prescribable, and it doesn't profit anyone anything, and that's the crux of the problem.
Vitamin D is something its easier to find and still people end up deficient and don't realize it. I think it's particularly telling how the article notes the deficiency can start in the mother and immediately be passed along to a child. How do children grow with inadequate foods? Are we collectively failing to reach our potential?
Be careful. I was constantly reminded of this throughout "gifted" school and it caused massive burnout when I couldn't sustain that expectation anymore in my 40s.
Being active and getting outside are associated with a multitude of health benefits and is correlated with vitamin D level. The Vitamin D Council pushes vitamin D supplementation based on this research (and funds it?) but there is minimal methodologically rigorous research showing health benefits from exogenous supplementation.
My read on this article, which is validated by all the comments in this thread, is that it's a PSA to public health officials to have better outreach for darker skinned individuals living in the UK who seem to be getting systematically misdiagnosed because of a lack of knowledge.
> there is minimal methodologically rigorous research showing health benefits from exogenous supplementation.
In this day and age, this shouldn't be an open question tbh. There is an extensive body of research, with dozens of meta-analysis / systematic reviews aiming to settle the score on this. If you let Claude or your favorite LLM du jour loose on Pubmed I'm sure it will surface some very reliable conclusions.
Are you being paid by the Vitamin D council or something? I thought HN was about curious conversation.
> There is an extensive body of research, with dozens of meta-analysis / systematic reviews aiming to settle the score on this. If you let Claude or your favorite LLM du jour loose on Pubmed I'm sure it will surface some very reliable conclusions.
After I finished my degree in human nutrition, I decided to go to medical school because of the amount of free time I was spending on PubMed. I previously had high hopes for vitamin D, but I am now a skeptic specifically due to the dearth of rigorous and supportive studies on PubMed.
Do you have any favorite trials of exogenous supplementation that are in humans, large sample size, RTC with appropriate blinding, and have positive, meaningful / non-surrogate outcomes? This would seem easy to accomplish given its wide availability, low cost, and excellent safety margin.
In contrast, vitamin D testing seems to be fairly commonplace in my practice setting, and unfortunately I see it being used as a scapegoat for dubious symptoms routinely.
> While her symptoms are not directly linked to vitamin D deficiency
> Those with darker skin need exposure to stronger light to produce the same amount of vitamin D as lighter skin.
I think it would be somewhat unsurprising if we find that genes that evolved for one climate are not ideal when migrated to another climate. Especially when we live much longer lives and these kinds of issues are much more relevant to our expected quality of life (ie. how would you know you're vitamin D deficient when you're a peasant who is everything deficient?) Which is all me just saying, I wouldn't be surprised if vitamin D deficiency, which is directly related to sunlight exposure, is a prevalant issue now that humans migrate so much more freely than ever before.
It's when those people go to northern latitudes that the inefficiency starts to matter.
yes in south india
I recently learned that in the winter, in the North, the angle of the sun is such that UVB rays cannot penetrate the atmosphere and your body therefore cannot produce Vitamin D. Surprisingly few people who live here are aware of this.
I take Vitamin D supplements every winter now and I think it makes a difference.