[HN Gopher] Notice of Intent to Amend the Prescription Drug List...
___________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent to Amend the Prescription Drug List: Vitamin D
(2020)
Author : walterbell
Score : 34 points
Date : 2023-06-21 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.canada.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.canada.ca)
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Reminder that taking Vitamin D in excess without having enough
| Vitamin K could lead to vascular calcification, whereas
| sufficient levels of Vitamin K promotes proper absorption of
| calcium into bones.
|
| Vitamin K supplementation for the primary prevention of
| osteoporotic fractures: is it cost-effective and is future
| research warranted? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22398856/
|
| Matrix Gla protein is an independent predictor of both intimal
| and medial vascular calcification in chronic kidney disease
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63013-8
|
| Matrix Gla protein
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_Gla_protein
| flenserboy wrote:
| Don't forget magnesium.
| cies wrote:
| I like to refer to Greger (a meta-study researcher in nutrition
| field):
|
| https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-purported-benefits-of-v...
|
| His conclusion on VitK: eat your greens.
| sBqQu3U0wH wrote:
| Recent studies suggest that taking vitamin K supplements does
| not help to prevent calcium build up in heart valve.
|
| https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/04/25/despite-hopes-vitam...
| snapplebobapple wrote:
| I don't believe they controlled for vitamin D status. The
| line has always been you need k and d in sufficient levels to
| get calcium to the right place so I'm not surprised that one
| or the other causes problems (although I do really want to
| see someone redo this with people with clinically validated
| moderate vitamin d levels).
| mtalantikite wrote:
| What's considered excess for Vitamin D?
| cies wrote:
| Strange how doctors I follow tell me that in winter months I'd
| need 2000IU per day of VitD it needed for my latitude/ sun
| exposure/ skin color. While the recommended daily intake is about
| 10x lower, so low that it may even be too low to measure the
| benefits. Are those FDA-like institutes so slow?
| chrismeller wrote:
| Umm... yes, yes they are.
| cies wrote:
| I know, where I live milk is still promoted by such
| institutes. We know for 40+ years it's bad for health beyond
| the weaning stage or near starvation.
| serallak wrote:
| Can you elaborate on that?
| fmajid wrote:
| It's utter nonsense, unless you are lactose intolerant.
| The mutation that allowed adults to digest milk had such
| a high fitness value it spread from Scandinavia through
| the human population like wildfire by evolutionary
| standards.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
| bluGill wrote:
| About 1/3 of adult humans can digest milk. For the
| majority it is harmful. However the other third have
| evolved to digest milk as adults and it isn't harmful in
| the same way.
|
| It is an intersting coincidence that ability to digest
| milk as an adult and fluency in English are correlated.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Consider this...Milk is intended to feed baby cows.
| Humans are not cows. Some cows milk for humans is likely
| not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a cocktail
| of nutrients and hormones intend for a baby cow.
|
| Put another way, just because Big Milk has normalized
| doesn't mean it's a good dietary decision.
|
| Proceed at your own risk.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Milk is one of the healthiest foods you can eat. It is a
| complete food, meaning it has all essential nutrients for
| human nutrition, including protein, fat, carbs, essential
| vitamins and minerals. If you had to pick a single food to
| live off for the rest of your life, milk would definitely
| be in the top 3.
| jstarfish wrote:
| What are the other 2?
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| If milk was that bad, humans wouldn't have developed adult
| lactose tolerance 10K years ago. Being able to drink/eat
| milk and dairy products was clearly an advantageous
| adaptation because it became very widespread mutation.
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lactose-
| toleranc...
| AdamH12113 wrote:
| If I read this right, they're increasing the maximum non-
| prescription dose of vitamin D from 1000 IU/day to 2500 IU/day.
| This seems to be the official dose on the label; nothing prevents
| you from taking extra pills. There's some discussion of
| methodology; the new limit seems to be a maximum known-safe
| dosage for someone in the 95th percentile of vitamin D intake.
| There's a fairly large safety margin built into these numbers for
| risk tolerance.
| treeman79 wrote:
| I had horrific migraines. Would walk into a store, and the
| lights would leave me completely dysfunctional within 10
| minutes. Tons of triggers. Spent 18-20 hours a day in bed
| unable to function.
|
| After about a year of 3000u daily vitamin D, my migraines were
| mostly gone. Lights and most other triggers didn't bother me at
| all.
|
| I did get tested at beginning and levels were quite low.
| lesquivemeau wrote:
| What is your point ? I don't doubt your story but how is it
| relevant ? There is no established causation here
| cubefox wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/552/
| vladd wrote:
| Why think in binary? His anecdote can be inspirational for
| others and testing his correlation is cheap to try out for
| others in similar predicaments.
| chrismeller wrote:
| > The UL itself was set by adjusting for uncertainty from a "no
| observed adverse effect level" intake value of 10,000 IU (250
| ug)/day.
|
| That's a very large safety margin.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| This seems to be a lot of text to avoid saying "we made a huge
| statistical error".
| cies wrote:
| And we know this already for 10+ years.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-21 23:01 UTC)