/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15864071
>should i take vitamin D pills at this point?
no its a meme, and a rat poison.

The "plausible" logic goes like this.
Sun = good.
Sun make skin produce a hormone we call: "vitamin D".
Therefore its good.

Ingesting cheap irridated sheep wool fat, to amp up a steroid hormone which is falsly labeled "vitameme", because of the reason:
>if sun good
>then sun making vitamin D in skin good
>because skin make it, its good
>therefore ingesting a steroid hormone good because if skin produce it its good
>because doctors call it a vitameme
>memes good
>consoom product

Currently all doctors appear to just switch from:
>vitamins don't help
to
>oh yeah Vitamin D just take it here 20000IU daily
>yeah you are not defficient, but more is better

I am a little confused on this topic.
Because even though Vitamin D is important, the now inflatory push for oral consumption of Vitamin D3 appears extremly wierd.
They went all of a sudden from "don't exceed 800 UI orally daily and if you are healthy don't take anything" to 100 Vitameme pills.

Of course I wanted to know more...
But 90% of all studies are "We gave vit D and blood level rises" and thats it.
There are only extremely obfuscated meta anylsis with interpretation on clinical benefits it "vitamin D level" rises.
There is rarely any clinical benefit only statistically a increase of vitamin D levels in lab tests.
SO my question is:
What is the evidence that oral consoom of vitamin D helps and what are the verifyable clinical benefits if blood level is increased?

>>15186380
I did my due diligence, and read a shit ton of Vitamin D studies.
Which oddly don't show anything beneficial.
Not even in their conclusions.
Not only that, they claim quite the opposite.

Vitamin D or to be more exact the orally consumed cholecalciferol is a pre metabolite of calcitriol.
cholecalciferol is a inactive version of the active steroid hormone calcitriol, which works like a cortiocosteroid.
It supresses symptoms.
Not only that, in the Lab measurements, they only measure for the two inactive versions of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol and Calcifediol and never the converted active hormone calcitriol.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28733125/
> "There is a growing body of evidence that VitD, especially its active metabolite, plays a key role in modulating the physiological activity of the immune system. This emergent role has stimulated a florid line of research aimed at associating the level of VitD with pathological situations wherein the immune system may be altered, such as in autoimmunity and inflammation.

> In these studies, 25OHD, the actual precursor of the active hormone calcitriol, is what has been routinely measured,..."

>inb4 but your skin produces it, so it must be good
You body produces all types of hormones. But supplementing them will fuck up your biochemistry.
In lab tests, the measure your "reservoir" of Vitamin D (which has a half life of 2-5 weeks) and never the "activated form" which regulates inflamation.
Meaning if you are inflamed your INACTIVE vitamin D levels are low, because your body converts it to the ACTIVE form (which is ignored in lab measurements).
>low vitamin D
Is not a relevant measurment if you cannot establish the association of its use and clinical findings.
Almost every study just focuses on "We supplement, and then Vitamin goes up" without showing any beneficial health impact.

>>15166358