raypeatclips
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 2,555
This forum gets worse every day lol
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
@raypeatclips, this is quoted from chris kresser's website. Have to dig for the article:
The stimulus for this vitamin D conversation, the most recent one at least, was a new prospective cohort study with over 1.2 million participants, so a pretty big sample size. And this study showed that the lowest mortality or risk of death from all different causes and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease were observed at vitamin 25D levels between 20 ng/mL and 36 ng/mL. That may surprise some of you because as you probably know, in the US the lower end of the lab reference range is 30 ng/mL, so a big chunk of that range where the researchers found that the risk of death and heart disease was the lowest is actually in a range that would be considered deficient by current standards. This isn’t the only study that reached this conclusion. There are actually several other fairly large epidemiological studies that have been done in the past few years that have suggested that the optimal vitamin D level might be much lower than is currently recommended, especially by some of the vitamin D advocacy organizations, like the Vitamin D Council. Some of the other studies, the range was 20 to 30. I think there was one that was 20 to 35, and then one went up to, I think, as high as 40, so it’s all basically in the same range.
@raypeatclips, what's with the attacks? Stay focused man. Just adding some humor. Wasn't trying to ruin your precious forum.
@raypeatclips, you have been digging at me. particularly with your condescending comment about me being "one of those people" who takes a close look at our past. think what you want, but there is a lot from the past that we can learn from.
that's my point. any study can be found to confirm any bias. I stated earlier that there are no consistent studies that definitively state vitamin d levels need to be in a certain range. if a pill helps you, knock yourself out. again, I fall back on the n=1 paradigm. what works for one, works for none. if you get benefit from vitamin d supplementation, then who am I to tell you your experience is wrong. I can't. That's why health is so anecdotal.
Not likely.chris masterjohn has written extensively about vitamin D and every known vitamin D study.
Swedes, who have very, very short, cold winter days in these half-life studies show that summer vitamin D exposure carries them through the winter until the spring when the sun reappears. That's the reality. It makes logical/intuitive sense. How can you explain the excellent health of northern latitude populations when supplementation wasn't even an option? People get what they deserve. You have to make change possible. And it generally doesn't involve cost. Vitamin D, like all supplements, are synthetic crap with no consistent studies backing them. Any substance taken chronically is not good for the body. The body is strengthened in a hormesis paradigm.
What a silly question... Writing style is way different... Everyone who disagreed must be the same person? Seems a little paranoid.@Colin Nordstrom gbolduev is that you?
I wasn't being serious. It was about his disliking of studies.What a silly question... Writing style is way different... Everyone who disagreed must be the same person? Seems a little paranoid.
There's a huge thing today showing how many studies were fraudulent, done under the wrong conditions, or were statistically insignificant. It is a bit daft to jump to the conclusion that anyone questioning along these lines is the same person - especially when one is obviously a native English speaker and the other is not.I wasn't being serious. It was about his disliking of studies.
Like I already told you, I was just being silly.There's a huge thing today showing how many studies were fraudulent, done under the wrong conditions, or were statistically insignificant. It is a bit daft to jump to the conclusion that anyone questioning along these lines is the same person - especially when one is obviously a native English speaker and the other is not.
Masterjohn advocates obtaining a Vitamin D level that (assuming adequate calcium status) maximally suppresses parathyroid hormone. For some that means 30 ng/ml or less and others 50 ng/ml or more.chris masterjohn has written extensively about vitamin D and every known vitamin D study