Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

ElizabethB

Vitamin D and Covid-19 info to share with friends and family

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

 

Where did you get the info on when Alaskans can make D? I've never seen such info but I struggle to think it's reliable since Adak is near parallel 51 and Utqiagvik is about 71° N .  That's a big difference to generalize to Alaska, unless you just meant where your friends live?

 

I have no idea why the font changed. I wasn't emphasizing just asking a normal question. No rudeness implied. And now it's red. My phone must be going nuts.

I ran the info into a NOAA sun angle calculator for their latitude.  They are in Anchorage, I used Anchorage.  Utqiagvik will have to wait even longer, hopefully they like cod liver oil.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

I ran the info into a NOAA sun angle calculator for their latitude.  They are in Anchorage, I used Anchorage.  Utqiagvik will have to wait even longer, hopefully they like cod liver oil.

 

 

Inuit who eat European type diets sometimes do have problems with rickets. Those who eat traditional diets tend not to. 

 

Their traditional diet provided what they needed through whale and seal. From what I understand (which is very limited) their genetics also helps them metabolize it properly.  Outsiders who move there should definitly supplement! 

 

Edited by frogger
Added "sometimes"
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ElizabethB said:

I ran the info into a NOAA sun angle calculator for their latitude.  They are in Anchorage, I used Anchorage.  Utqiagvik will have to wait even longer, hopefully they like cod liver oil.

 

 

Whale, seal, etc blubber was traditional source for D vitamins that far north —- and other than toxins in the modern animals and hunting issues it’s an excellent source!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, frogger said:

 

Inuit who eat European type diets do have problems with rickets. Those who eat traditional diets tend not to. 

 

Their traditional diet provided what they needed through whale and seal. From what I understand (which is very limited) their genetics also helps them metabolize it properly.  Outsiders who move there should definitly supplement! 

 

 

You beat me to that just barely! 😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting.  I have only heard of supplementing with D for serious health conditions.  I didn't know anyone did it routinely unless they lived in the artic circle. I did know that after the skin cancer message sinking in the doctors did notice a problem and start to point out the sun was needed.  I do think supplements are in general less common here than overseas though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, kiwik said:

Really interesting.  I have only heard of supplementing with D for serious health conditions.  I didn't know anyone did it routinely unless they lived in the artic circle. I did know that after the skin cancer message sinking in the doctors did notice a problem and start to point out the sun was needed.  I do think supplements are in general less common here than overseas though.

 

NZ May have less trouble with D than USA even though latitudes are similar for parts of USA because you may have lots of grass fed animal products.  Butter, meats etc from grass fed animals as well as fish, have natural Vitamin D (much like whale and seal blubber having had it for traditional diets in far north indigenous diets).   So traditionally a lot of what could be gotten for winter eating (not modern out of season fruit and highly processed boxed foods) would have had natural high D levels, and in NZ if you have more grass fed and less factory farmed animals, it may still have.

Also if people get enough sun in summer it can help carry them through the winter. (Where I currently live it is often too “overcast” to get good sun even in summer.  Or maybe it is airplanes— I have seen more clear skies recently than usual.  (Like the memes—maybe soon I’ll see the latitude lines up there😁))

 

It hasn’t been shown from lab studies to affect blood levels, but some skin problems can be helped by topical D— and it is possible that wearing lanolin rich wool in winter, rubbing D rich oils into skin etc would also have raised D levels traditionally (without that being the goal).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, frogger said:

For anyone reading through this please check with your doctor before loading up on D.  Overdosing on Vitamin D can cause problems for kidneys and cause the formation of kidney stones.

Most literature states levels up to 4000 IU is safe for a limited time but have much lower amounts for maintenance. Some as low 400-800IU although general multi-vitamin s tend to have 1000IU. I am NOT a doctor but I would talk to your doctor and get your levels checked before taking the amounts mentioned in this thread. There is such a thing as too much Vitamin D. 

There's been a lot of good research linked in various threads here, showing the benefit (and safety) of the levels of supplementation we're talking about. The old recommendations about what level of D is necessary, and what the appropriate levels of supplementation are, were developed with the goal of preventing rickets, before we understood the important role that D plays in so many other physiological processes. It used to be thought that any level over 20 was fine, now we know that is really low and most people are better off above 50, and some don't feel really well until they get to 70-80 or even more. People would have to take a lot more D than is being recommended here to get to toxic levels — like 60,000 iu/day for months. 

There's nothing wrong with discussing it with the family doctor, but people should keep in mind that many doctors are really not very well-educated or up to date when it comes to research on vitamins and nutrition. I mentioned before that when my D levels were at 12, which is dangerously low, my doctor at the time said it was "a little low" and I could take 400 iu/day if I wanted. Taking such a low amount would literally never get my levels up to where they needed to be. Same thing happened to my son when he tested positive for Lyme disease, the doctor brushed off a single-digit D level as no big deal. So I would trust the results and recommendations presented in well-reviewed research studies over the opinion of a family practitioner who may have had one or two classes in nutrition years ago and hasn't followed up on any research since.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

There's been a lot of good research linked in various threads here, showing the benefit (and safety) of the levels of supplementation we're talking about. The old recommendations about what level of D is necessary, and what the appropriate levels of supplementation are, were developed with the goal of preventing rickets, before we understood the important role that D plays in so many other physiological processes. It used to be thought that any level over 20 was fine, now we know that is really low and most people are better off above 50, and some don't feel really well until they get to 70-80 or even more. People would have to take a lot more D than is being recommended here to get to toxic levels — like 60,000 iu/day for months. 

There's nothing wrong with discussing it with the family doctor, but people should keep in mind that many doctors are really not very well-educated or up to date when it comes to research on vitamins and nutrition. I mentioned before that when my D levels were at 12, which is dangerously low, my doctor at the time said it was "a little low" and I could take 400 iu/day if I wanted. Taking such a low amount would literally never get my levels up to where they needed to be. Same thing happened to my son when he tested positive for Lyme disease, the doctor brushed off a single-digit D level as no big deal. So I would trust the results and recommendations presented in well-reviewed research studies over the opinion of a family practitioner who may have had one or two classes in nutrition years ago and hasn't followed up on any research since.

 

Compounding the issue is that many labs haven’t adjusted the value range upwards for D, so it won’t be flagged as low so that it stands out on a list/page with other items. It can get buried in other numbers, or you can have a practitioner not looking for the specific number, but just for issues flagged by the lab. The same thing can happen with thyroid and blood iron tests. 

And of course, we are each uniquely made. So while we can love and appreciate our good doctors, we have to be educated patients, too, to get the best quality care. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

Compounding the issue is that many labs haven’t adjusted the value range upwards for D, so it won’t be flagged as low so that it stands out on a list/page with other items. It can get buried in other numbers, or you can have a practitioner not looking for the specific number, but just for issues flagged by the lab. The same thing can happen with thyroid and blood iron tests. 

And of course, we are each uniquely made. So while we can love and appreciate our good doctors, we have to be educated patients, too, to get the best quality care. 

 

I would think if you asked for the labs though you can look at the numbers your self if you request.

 

I just remember. while waiting to get a kid weighed, hearing a doctor complain to another doctor about having kids come into his practice at toxic levels. That was a few years ago.   I am not an expert but if you do your research and get your levels tested that's great. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

There's been a lot of good research linked in various threads here, showing the benefit (and safety) of the levels of supplementation we're talking about. The old recommendations about what level of D is necessary, and what the appropriate levels of supplementation are, were developed with the goal of preventing rickets, before we understood the important role that D plays in so many other physiological processes. It used to be thought that any level over 20 was fine, now we know that is really low and most people are better off above 50, and some don't feel really well until they get to 70-80 or even more. People would have to take a lot more D than is being recommended here to get to toxic levels — like 60,000 iu/day for months. 

There's nothing wrong with discussing it with the family doctor, but people should keep in mind that many doctors are really not very well-educated or up to date when it comes to research on vitamins and nutrition. I mentioned before that when my D levels were at 12, which is dangerously low, my doctor at the time said it was "a little low" and I could take 400 iu/day if I wanted. Taking such a low amount would literally never get my levels up to where they needed to be. Same thing happened to my son when he tested positive for Lyme disease, the doctor brushed off a single-digit D level as no big deal. So I would trust the results and recommendations presented in well-reviewed research studies over the opinion of a family practitioner who may have had one or two classes in nutrition years ago and hasn't followed up on any research since.

 

You are very generous in how much you think typical doctors study nutrition!

“Today, most medical schools in the United States teach less than 25 hours of nutrition over four years. The fact that less than 20 percent of medical schools have a single required course in nutrition, it's a scandal.May 8, 2017”
 

Doctors need more nutrition education | News | Harvard T.H. ... “

 

 

I would say the women doctors in my family have some nutrition knowledge mostly because of being mothers, not medical school.  The men...that’s another story. 

 

4 doctors I have been to in my life had some nutrition knowledge to speak of, but all from self teaching due to personal interest, not because of medical school.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frogger said:

 

I would think if you asked for the labs though you can look at the numbers your self if you request.

 

I just remember. while waiting to get a kid weighed, hearing a doctor complain to another doctor about having kids come into his practice at toxic levels. That was a few years ago.   I am not an expert but if you do your research and get your levels tested that's great. 

 

I can understand how that would frighten you!

But use research and logic to evaluate that. 

Toxic levels would indicate death levels.   

How many children other than from a rare accidental overdose  have died of vitamin D?  Or even from a rare accidental overdose? 

 

I do agree that getting levels tested is ideal, but not an easy time to do it.  

Beachgal did share a home test option. I don’t know how accurate it would be. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frogger said:

 

I would think if you asked for the labs though you can look at the numbers your self if you request.

 

I just remember. while waiting to get a kid weighed, hearing a doctor complain to another doctor about having kids come into his practice at toxic levels. That was a few years ago.   I am not an expert but if you do your research and get your levels tested that's great. 

 

Yes I do look at al the numbers for specific things and when my doc orders general bloodwork, I ask him to tag on anything else I’m curious about and can afford. I confess, though, that we are fortunate to have good insurance with a reasonable copay. I realize that’s not true for everyone. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seasider too said:

 

Yes I do look at al the numbers for specific things and when my doc orders general bloodwork, I ask him to tag on anything else I’m curious about and can afford. I confess, though, that we are fortunate to have good insurance with a reasonable copay. I realize that’s not true for everyone. 

Yeah, no doctor has ever added tests for D or B12 without me specifically asking for them — and one warned me that I might have to pay for those out of pocket because she doesn't normally request them and didn't think they were necessary. In my entire life I have had ONE really good doctor, and I literally cried when I found out she'd moved to another state. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the issue I see isn't death it's kidney stones and dizziness and nausea from Calcium in the blood unless it is an extreme case.

My doc. only recommended the multi for my daughter after her blood test but I have been giving her the multi (for everything in the morning) and just D3 with her evening meal but not to these levels.  I might have to do more research. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, frogger said:

Well, the issue I see isn't death it's kidney stones and dizziness and nausea from Calcium in the blood unless it is an extreme case.

My doc. only recommended the multi for my daughter after her blood test but I have been giving her the multi (for everything in the morning) and just D3 with her evening meal but not to these levels.  I might have to do more research. 

 

 

I do think it is important to take K2 (and A and E— at least food sources of them) so as to help make sure calcium stays in bones and teeth where it belongs.

However, I am not sure that kidney stones are actually a significant issue:

 

by GV Singh · 2019 · Related articles
Dec 21, 2018 · Several studies have attempted to find an association between serum concentrations of vitamin D, hypercalciuria, and risk of renal stone ...
 
 
by Z Malihi · 2019 · Cited by 14 · Related articles
Apr 21, 2019 · For many years, there have been concerns that vitamin D supplements could increase the risk of kidney stones and other calcium-related adverse ...
 
 
Oct 17, 2013 · Taking vitamin D does not increase the risk for kidney stones, the study found. People's age, gender and weight, however, may play a role in ...
 
 
by ML Schulster
Feb 4, 2020 · there is a theoretical risk that vitamin D supplementation may increase intestinal absorption and lithogenesis. Recent data have shown no risk of ...
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Types of D3:

Animal and vegan options

 

eta: except for vegans, I don’t personally think that lichen is a better source than lanolin.  If fact, I use lanolin and think it is good, perhaps better.  I have more concerns about lichen depletion than lanolin depletion.  (In my part of world a number of lichens are under stress, and they are important to ecosystem).

However, someone on long thread posted about a vegan form of D3/K2 they take, and I happened to find the linked article in looking up the vegan form.

 

Some sources seem to express reservations about lichen based D3 just because little is known:

Lichen? So much is unknown about lichen's safetyand toxicity; it may be a good idea to avoid Vitamin D3sourced from lichen. If you are shopping for Vitamin D3 supplements, it's probably best to consume nutrients created from lanolin.Oct 10, 2019
Edited by Pen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElizabethB said:

The vitamin D studies are piling up!!

New study, New Orleans

"Vitamin D Insufficiency is Prevalent in Severe COVID-19"

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838v1

I would make a graph but their data is kind of confusing, and low patient numbers.

 

Wow, so all 11 ICU patients <75 years old had VDI, with 7 below 20 ng/mL and 3 below 10 ng/mL. Those are some crazy low numbers! 😳

Can someone explain (in really simple plain English), what "CAC" is and what the connection is between Vit D and blood clots? 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Wow, so all 11 ICU patients <75 years old had VDI, with 7 below 20 ng/mL and 3 below 10 ng/mL. Those are some crazy low numbers! 😳

Can someone explain (in really simple plain English), what "CAC" is and what the connection is between Vit D and blood clots? 

COVID-19 associated coagulopathy (CAC).

I think CAC is fancy med speak for "in some Covid patients we saw blood thickening."  Blood thickening, coagulating, more clots.  

I think they were sleep deprived, it is not easy to follow. I did figure it out mostly and made a graph.  Vitamin D underlies a lot of things, perhaps there is a pathway were low D influences the clotting or influences something else that influences clotting.

I know I felt like crap when my D levels were 7!  And, when I started researching vitamin D in 2018 when my levels were low, there were a bunch of things that D regulated and people who were low had a bunch of weird symptoms, there were a ton, I don't remember them all, but good vitamin D levels are helpful for a lot of different things.  

ETA: There is some evidence that vitamin D is related to blood clotting, perhaps together with K.

https://vitamindwiki.com/Blood+clotting+(Thrombosis)+is+associated+with+low+Vitamin+D+(yet+again)

Edited by ElizabethB
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I found this article interesting because it was published in 2012! 

It specifically talks about how the levels of D affect inflammation and the production of cytokines. Currently, the talk is what they call a cytokine storm and would directly relate to this research in 2012 from what I can see. 

 

Forgot the link. https://www.nationaljewish.org/about/news/press-releases/2012/vitd-mechanism

 

Edited by frogger
Forgot to add link
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes me curious about the vitamin D levels in the covid related stroke victims they are seeing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, frogger said:

So I found this article interesting because it was published in 2012! 

It specifically talks about how the levels of D affect inflammation and the production of cytokines. Currently, the talk is what they call a cytokine storm and would directly relate to this research in 2012 from what I can see. 

 

Forgot the link. https://www.nationaljewish.org/about/news/press-releases/2012/vitd-mechanism

 

That is interesting, thanks!  

I have another cytokine storm article I link sometimes, but I hadn't seen that one.

The Role of Vitamin D in Suppressing Cytokine Storm in COVID-19 Patients and Associated Mortality

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v2

Edited by ElizabethB
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, frogger said:

It makes me curious about the vitamin D levels in the covid related stroke victims they are seeing. 

 

Me too!

  I don’t know if other than a few personally interested doctors, D levels are being checked. 

 

Apr 3, 2011 · A lack of vitamin D, even in generally healthy people, is linked with ... the blood vessels constrict or relax and helping to prevent clots that lead to ...

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Me too!

  I don’t know if other than a few personally interested doctors, D levels are being checked. 

 

Apr 3, 2011 · A lack of vitamin D, even in generally healthy people, is linked with ... the blood vessels constrict or relax and helping to prevent clots that lead to ...

 

 

I bet some hospitals have retrospective records they could track down--I think that's how the US study was done, it sounded like they looked up the records of all their Covid patients who had vitamin D levels in the system and then ran the numbers.  It would be interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ElizabethB said:

I bet some hospitals have retrospective records they could track down--I think that's how the US study was done, it sounded like they looked up the records of all their Covid patients who had vitamin D levels in the system and then ran the numbers.  It would be interesting!

 

I think a lot of people just don’t get Vitamin D levels done though.  It isn’t part of a typical standard blood work panel afaik.  I know when I first got mine checked, I had to specially entreat... and my doctor was surprised when it came out in single digits. 

Even typical follow the old low level to prevent rickets type physicians might not like to see levels as low as some they are finding with CV19.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to read this, my dh is overweight but takes Vit D every day. He works inside so rarely gets enough from outside, especially so in the winter. A few years back he tested low and he's been religious with taking his since then. I know I feel better with levels around 70 (and sleep much better) so I supplement as well. I've backed off a bit with being outside so much this time of year but still take well over the pitiful RDA.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2020 at 1:31 PM, Corraleno said:

There's been a lot of good research linked in various threads here, showing the benefit (and safety) of the levels of supplementation we're talking about. The old recommendations about what level of D is necessary, and what the appropriate levels of supplementation are, were developed with the goal of preventing rickets, before we understood the important role that D plays in so many other physiological processes. It used to be thought that any level over 20 was fine, now we know that is really low and most people are better off above 50, and some don't feel really well until they get to 70-80 or even more. People would have to take a lot more D than is being recommended here to get to toxic levels — like 60,000 iu/day for months. 

 

 

My experience is otherwise.  at 5k daily, over several years, I steadily increased my D levels, until I went over 100.  At that point, the specialists told me to adjust the dose as I was at risk of calcium imbalance, among other things.   I feel great once I hit 70, as long as I don't ingest folic acid containing foods and disrupt my B12....and I have genetic variations in both B12 and D processing ability. 

In regards to Dr's...I lucked out one day.  finallly old enough that the new doctor in the practice listened to me what I said I was fatigued, and didn't pass it off as being a mom.  He ran the B12 and D and that changed my life.  I have B12 and D done routinely now...because of the diagnosis, its covered by the insurance.  It's not free, I pay my portion.  My children that have similar genetics also have their B12 and D labs covered, because of the genetic evidence and my history.

Really, the best thing everyone can do is maintain a normal weight.  The excess fat sucks up the D.  One has to use the labs so one doesn't imbalance the rest of the nutrients.

Edited by HeighHo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we tag BeachGal? She might find the D insufficiency and cytokine storm correlation interesting, based on her comments on the ginormous wuhan-CV thread. 

@BeachGal

(my first attempt at tagging - we will see if it works!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandinavian countries have also tended to have a high level of topless or naturist swimming and sunbathing .   So more summer sun exposure perhaps than many other latitudes away from equator.  And maybe even more sun exposure than people from some cultures would be likely to get near equator. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

Scandinavian countries have also tended to have a high level of topless or naturist swimming and sunbathing .   So more summer sun exposure perhaps than many other latitudes away from equator.  And maybe even more sun exposure than people from some cultures would be likely to get near equator. 

There was some of that going on in Germany too, and in hotel saunas, never anyone you wanted to see.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pen said:

Scandinavian countries have also tended to have a high level of topless or naturist swimming and sunbathing .   So more summer sun exposure perhaps than many other latitudes away from equator.  And maybe even more sun exposure than people from some cultures would be likely to get near equator. 

 

i will stick to my easy-to-swallow capsules, thank you very much.  

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twitter thread listing several new trials of vitamin D, in a few different states and countries.

 France, California, Spain, LSU 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, far left and far right and health nuts on twitter are interested in vitamin D, everyone else not so much.  

Also, people who were vitamin D deficient themselves and saw a big difference after supplementing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2020 at 12:36 AM, frogger said:

For anyone reading through this please check with your doctor before loading up on D.  Overdosing on Vitamin D can cause problems for kidneys and cause the formation of kidney stones.

Most literature states levels up to 4000 IU is safe for a limited time but have much lower amounts for maintenance. Some as low 400-800IU although general multi-vitamin s tend to have 1000IU. I am NOT a doctor but I would talk to your doctor and get your levels checked before taking the amounts mentioned in this thread. There is such a thing as too much Vitamin D. 

There is, but it takes a LOT to get there. When I was pregnant I researched it, and Vitamin A, to make sure I was okay taking higher doses in my bariatric vitamins. 

Baritatric patients routinely take a crap ton of D, and have levels checked at least yearly. 

 

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

Interestingly, far left and far right and health nuts on twitter are interested in vitamin D, everyone else not so much.  

Also, people who were vitamin D deficient themselves and saw a big difference after supplementing. 

 

Yes, but I also think the nature of vitamin salespeople who say it will cure anything has turned off a lot of doctors and so they tune out vitamin studies. Many of those things turn out not to be true and you get the boy who cried wolf syndrome. 

 

And of course, correlation does not equal causation but being at healthy levels has no risk so definitly advisable even if there hasn't been clinical trials yet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting new vitamin D article by a Scottish doctor, he has some interesting graphs with vitamin D levels in the UK for every month of the year, a parabola opposite the flu parabola.  Also, "To put this another way, of those 104 subjects who took 2,000 IU of vitamin D every day, only one got a cold or influenza in the entire year."  I read and linked the flu vs. vitamin D study, but he has a graph and numbers that show just how powerful supplementation for the flu was.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/28/covid-update-focus-on-vitamin-d/

Edited by ElizabethB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VitaminDoutcomesStudyIndia.thumb.jpg.16f3a01e7676f8e6719ddd67f953376e.jpgNew vitamin D paper, lots of interesting graphs.  Vitamin D vs. outcome and age especially interesting, Vitamin D status overcame age in correlation graph, so older patients with good vitamin D levels were better off than younger patients [relative older, they were all old] with lower levels of vitamin D.

India Study

Vitamin D Level of Mild and Severe Elderly Cases of COVID-19: A Preliminary Report

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3593258#.XrE0oF1wSjU.twitter

 “Majority (84.6%) of COVID-19 critical patients had Vitamin D insufficiency and 100% of critical patients less than 75 years old had Vitamin D insufficiency.”

@PenWhat do you think of this graph?

Edited by ElizabethB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElizabethB said:

VitaminDoutcomesStudyIndia.thumb.jpg.16f3a01e7676f8e6719ddd67f953376e.jpgNew vitamin D paper, lots of interesting graphs.  Vitamin D vs. outcome and age especially interesting, Vitamin D status overcame age in correlation graph, so older patients with good vitamin D levels were better off than younger patients [relative older, they were all old] with lower levels of vitamin D.

India Study

Vitamin D Level of Mild and Severe Elderly Cases of COVID-19: A Preliminary Report

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3593258#.XrE0oF1wSjU.twitter

 “Majority (84.6%) of COVID-19 critical patients had Vitamin D insufficiency and 100% of critical patients less than 75 years old had Vitamin D insufficiency.”

@PenWhat do you think of this graph?

 

Do you want me to review graph as a stand alone without reading article first? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Do you want me to review graph as a stand alone without reading article first? 

 

You can read it first, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2020 at 12:36 AM, frogger said:

For anyone reading through this please check with your doctor before loading up on D.  Overdosing on Vitamin D can cause problems for kidneys and cause the formation of kidney stones.

Most literature states levels up to 4000 IU is safe for a limited time but have much lower amounts for maintenance. Some as low 400-800IU although general multi-vitamin s tend to have 1000IU. I am NOT a doctor but I would talk to your doctor and get your levels checked before taking the amounts mentioned in this thread. There is such a thing as too much Vitamin D. 

I agree with this. My kidney doctor has me taking 400 iu every other day. He is testing my D level (I don't remember the latest number) and he follows current studies, etc. I actually questioned him at first - "don't you  mean 4,000?" -  because it seemed so little as to be pointless.

One of the problems I see is that some people will read or be told that Vit D can help them will just start taking it in massive quantities without further reading, etc.  (Same with many things - "zinc cured my kid's acne!" and people start handing large quantities of zinc to their kids.)  

I also know that this group is highly analytical and research-oriented, so probably not a big risk here.  I do know a lot of people who jump on the latest health bandwagon, for better or worse, without thinking about how it might affect their own bodies. 

Edited by marbel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I like your graph and think it is very clear and easy to see! 

 

 I think the paper is excellent and ended up sending link to it, and its own figure 10 graph to one of my elders...   but the papers own  graph while it has wonderful information, is going to be hard for my Senior with senior vision to see on a small cellphone screen (I convinced my distant location senior to start cellphone use for the pandemic — but my senior complains a good bit about tiny print and unclear graphics.)

 

Here is the graphic I found most persuasive— though hard to see on cellphone screen.   
 
The blue circles are of mild case outcomes. For people over age 70, all people with vitamin D level above 30ng/ml seem to have had mild cases.  Or perhaps not been infected so no case at all!!!
 

 

D6DCC88F-AED5-4AEB-B7F0-F67752528B33.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@frogger and @marbel

It may well be that with kidney troubles you have to be especially careful not to take even the normal minimum daily allowance, or the RDA. I would not want to suggest otherwise.  My dad is / was a nephrologist and I know there at least used to be concerns about kidney stone formation etc. 

 

But...

The current USA RDA is 600 IU per day iirc. With discussion of raising it to 1,000 IU per day. 

My multivitamin has 2,000 IU D3. 

eta: wrong group... too many with similar names...

 

 

I do suggest people research and decide carefully for themselves. 

VitaminDWiki.com is currently a good starting point IMO.  

***And of course there is always the “talk with your doctor” caveat. !!!***  😊

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I like your graph and think it is very clear and easy to see! 

 

 I think the paper is excellent and ended up sending link to it, and its own figure 10 graph to one of my elders...   but the papers own  graph while it has wonderful information, is going to be hard for my Senior with senior vision to see on a small cellphone screen (I convinced my distant location senior to start cellphone use for the pandemic — but my senior complains a good bit about tiny print and unclear graphics.)

 

Here is the graphic I found most persuasive— though hard to see on cellphone screen.   
 
The blue circles are of mild case outcomes. For people over age 70, all people with vitamin D level above 30ng/ml seem to have had mild cases.  Or perhaps not been infected so no case at all!!!
 

 

D6DCC88F-AED5-4AEB-B7F0-F67752528B33.png

I liked this graph and a similar one against age best too, but I don't think I should copy and paste it on my LinkedIn article.  Both were very illustrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...