WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

944

Anyone noticed more muscle cramping the past year?

Anyone noticed more muscle cramping the past year?

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

I was trying to find the actual scientific study which made the correlation between D and heart attacks so I could ser what blood serum levels they were discussing. This paper is not there anymore. http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jc.2014-4551

[–] 0 pt

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jc.2014-4551 is DOI : https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2014-4551 which is : 2015 : https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/6/2339/2829632

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 100, Issue 6, 1 June 2015, Pages 2339–2346

A Reverse J-Shaped Association Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: The CopD Study

[–] 0 pt (edited )

To quote your article

Ignore the Following. Otd is for first article not the second article

Of 247 574 subjects, a total of 16 645 subjects died in the ensuing 0–7 years. A total of 5454 died from cardiovascular disease including 1574 from stroke and 702 from acute myocardial infarct. The 25(OH)D level of 70 nmol/L was associated with the lowest cardiovascular disease mortality risk. Compared with that level, the hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease mortality was 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–2.1] at the lower extreme (∼12.5 nmol/L) with a higher risk for men [2.5 (95% CI 2.2–2.9)] than for women [1.7 (95% CI 1.5–1.9)]. At the higher extreme (∼125 nmol/L), the hazard ratio of cardiovascular disease mortality was 1.3 (95% CI 1.2–1.4), with a similar risk among men and women. Results were similar for stroke and acute myocardial subgroups.

So here are the levels

12.5 nmol/l =2.5x death men 70 =normal 125 =1.3 x death

So having more vitamin d is far less risky than having too little.

Now we need the daily intake to get this levels which was in the study showing the calculation mistake for USDA recommended

Give me a minute.

So this mentions the study but doesnt show the calulations https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.htm

So still looking...

Here we go https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/10/4472/htm

Let me get the quote

This regression line revealed that 600 IU of vitamin D per day achieves that 97.5% of individuals will have serum 25(OH)D values above 26.8 nmol/L rather than above 50 nmol/L which is currently assumed. It also estimated that 8895 IU of vitamin D per day may be needed to accomplish that 97.5% of individuals achieve serum 25(OH)D values of 50 nmol/L or more.

So they say it takes 8800 IU to get to 50nmol/l But we actually want to get to 70nmol/l as the first article says because that was optimum level for less heart attack risk.

I have been taking 10,000 IU a day since covid started and since I read the miscalulation article. Most things say there are no side effects for much more like 50,000 iu in one person for years had no apparent side effects. Of course your heart attack data is not included as that person was alive.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

as i keep saying...

Other papers also show that merely a little extra D causes heart involved events... 300% RDA of D is bad. under 100% is very bad.

Its a picky thing

STAY CLEAR of extra vitamin D, even the D hidden in some calcium tablets