Low Vitamin D levels may not play as big a role in preventing/treating diseases

Vitamin D boosts calcium in the blood, which is important for coherent intercellular communication. However, if your calcium metabolism is off due to low magnesium&#x2F;low vitamin K the extra calcium in your blood might deposit in the wrong places. Vitamin D is also interlinked with circadian rhythm signalling so the time you&#x27;re exposed to it could potentially modify how it effects you.<p>It does a bunch of other things too. Like specific things. That can be and have been shown to be beneficial in the right contexts for the right people.<p>So what purpose do these kinds of articles serve?

This is disappointing in various ways. The piece starts off with mention that exposure to sunlight is the most recommended way to boost vitamin D levels, but then focuses exclusively on oral supplements. Then the recommendation against population wide testing mention none of the exceptions such as evidence of weak immune system function. Just because a pill is not a miracle cure does not mean there are no important health effects to investigate.

I’m just sticking to a high daily D dose. It’s cheap, there is no risk, and it seems to bother the medical press and tabloid science journalist alike.

Medicine is going to become more and more personal as we enter the age of AI. Vitamin D may be beneficial for certain individuals but may not show any significance in major populations. The same thing as diets, certain drugs, and other vitamins&#x2F;minerals. What I find saddening is that certain researchers will jump straight into a RCT of vitamin D for upcoming diseases as if that will do anything of significance. There are some devout vitamin D followers out there just like there were with vitamin C. One of the biggest risks of vitamins is contamination similar to the tryptophan incident in the 90s. Nobody has to prove safety or efficacy to sell them although they are generally safe to use until some accident happens and they aren’t.

Has the title changed or was this submission title editorialized?<p>The title that I see is &quot;How Much Vitamin D Do You Need to Stay Healthy?&quot;.

TLDR; Vitamin D pills are a poor substitute for sunlight.

Ten bucks says that Vitamin D is worthless, and only shows up as important because it correlates with sunlight, which turns out to be hugely important to health.<p>For example - our skin is constantly covered in bacteria and molds, surely sunlight impacts these.