Feeling drained and lethargic is common: A 2022 national survey found that 13.5% of U.S. adults said they felt “very tired” or “exhausted” most days or every day over a three-month period.
Women ages 18 to 44 had the highest rate of fatigue – just over 20%.
Being tired is linked to something deeper than just overwork or a sign of the times. I’m a registered dietitian and nutritional neuroscientist. My research, along with the work of others in the field, shows that your diet and lifestyle choices may contribute to your struggles. These two factors are closely interconnected and could be the key to understanding what’s holding you back.
In particular, not getting enough of three essential nutrients – vitamin D, vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty acids – is linked to low energy levels.
Vitamin D
More than 40% of adult Americans are deficient in vitamin D. Low levels are linked to fatigue, bone pain, muscle weakness, mood disorders and cognitive decline.
Foods high in vitamin D include fatty fish like salmon, sardines, freshwater rainbow trout, fortified dairy products and egg yolks. Among the sources for vegetarians and vegans are fortified plant-based milks and cereals and some kinds of mushrooms.
The U.S. government’s recommended daily amount of vitamin D is 400 international units, or IU, for infants up to 12 months, 600 IU for people ages 1 to 70 and 800 IU for people over 70. Just over 5 ounces (150 grams) of sockeye salmon fillet has about 800 IU of vitamin D. If you are low in a vitamin, your doctor may prescribe you a higher dose than the recommended daily amount to elevate your blood levels to normal.
Vitamin B12
About 20% of Americans have inadequate vitamin B12 levels, which can impair energy production and lead to anemia, resulting in fatigue.
Low levels of B12 are notably higher in older people, pregnant and lactating women, people with gastrointestinal disorders like inflammatory bowel disease, those who take certain medications like proton-pump inhibitors, and people with alcohol use disorder.
Because vitamin B12 is primarily found in meat, fish, dairy and eggs, vegetarians and vegans should consider taking a vitamin B12 supplement. The recommended daily amount for anyone ages 4 and older is 2.4 micrograms, about what’s found in 3 ounces of tuna or Atlantic salmon. Pregnant and breastfeeding women require slightly more.
Taking B12 supplements can be as effective as getting the vitamin from food – and taking the supplement with food may enhance its absorption.
That said, here’s a note on supplements in general: While they can be beneficial, they shouldn’t replace whole foods.
Not only are supplements less strictly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration compared to prescription and over-the-counter drugs, making their potency uncertain, but real food also provides a complex array of nutrients that work in a synergistic way. Many supplements on the market boast multiple servings of vegetables, but nothing beats the actual food.
Omega-3 fatty acids
About 87% of adults ages 40 to 59, and about 80% of those 60 and older, don’t get enough omega-3 fatty acids to meet dietary recommendations. Neither do many pregnant women.
Omega-3 fatty acids are crucial for brain health, and a deficiency can lead to higher anxiety and depression levels and impaired cognitive function. Taken together, these deficiencies can add to fatigue.
The best sources of omega-3 fatty acids are fatty fish, but if you’re strictly vegan, flaxseeds, chia seeds and walnuts can be great alternatives. However, it’s worth noting the omega-3s in fish are absorbed better in the body than plant sources – and that determines how efficiently the body can use the omega-3.
Also, whole flaxseed has a tough outer shell, which makes it more difficult to digest and absorb its nutrients. But ground flaxseed has been broken down, making the omega-3s and other nutrients more available for absorption.
The role of alcohol
Although alcohol may provide a sense of relaxation in the moment, it actually contributes to fatigue after the buzz wears off. Alcohol is a toxin; it forces your body to prioritize its metabolism over that of nutrients, which means the body reduces the use of carbohydrates and fat for energy.
Alcohol also reduces the absorption of B vitamins, which consequently affects energy production. The bottom line: If you drink alcohol, ultimately you will feel tired.
Lifestyle factors
Diet isn’t everything. Sunlight, exercise, better sleep and stress management are all critical factors for reducing fatigue.
Your body can make vitamin D from sunlight, and you don’t need a lot. A few minutes up to a half hour of sun exposure can help most people get what they need. The amount of time can vary depending on where you live, how much clothing you wear and what time of year you get the exposure. You’ll reach your vitamin D daily quota much faster on a sunny day during the summer than a cloudy day in winter.
And it may sound counterintuitive, but the more you exercise, the more energy you will produce; working out doesn’t drain you. Instead, it boosts energy, along with mood, by improving blood flow and helping to release endorphins, which are hormones produced by the body to relieve pain or stress.
Without exercise, the human body becomes less efficient at producing energy, which leads to lethargy. Coupled with erratic blood sugar levels – often caused by diets high in refined sugars and low in nutrients – these energy dips and spikes can leave you feeling irritable and drained.
Aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise each week through activities like brisk walking, cycling, swimming and strength training.
Poor sleep makes things even worse. Not getting enough rest disrupts the body’s natural recovery processes and will leave you with diminished energy and focus.
So you should try to get seven to nine hours of quality sleep each night. For some people this is not easy; creating a calming bedtime routine helps, and limiting screen time is key.
Avoid phones, computers and other screens for at least 30 to 60 minutes before bed. The blue light emitted from screens can interfere with your body’s production of melatonin, a hormone that helps regulate sleep. Conversely, activities like reading, meditation or gentle stretching help signal to your body that it’s time to sleep.
In short, there are things you can do about your fatigue. Smart choices help optimize mood, energy levels and overall health, and reduce the surges of sluggishness you feel throughout the day.
Make no mistake: Your diet and lifestyle can make all the difference between being alert or wiped out.
Lina Begdache is Associate Professor of Health and Wellness Studies, Binghamton University, State University of New York.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
41 Comments
Login to comment
Wick's pencil
Also linked to poor immunity, as many here have been saying for the past five years.
virusrex
For 40% of the population? definitely not. Supplementation has been studied and offer no benefit except for the few that actually have clinical signs of deficiency. For those that only have "low" levels according to the commonly used US standard, extra vitamin D did not improve things.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66267-8
Raw Beer
Thank you virusrex for that excellent reference.
From the abstract: "Adequate vitamin D had a tendency to prevent COVID-19."
From the introduction (everything backed with references): "Vitamin D also plays an important role in regulating immune function. Vitamin D can modulate immunity; on the one hand, vitamin D can activate non-specific immunity and enhance the body's antiviral ability; on the other hand, vitamin D can inhibit the inflammatory response and prevent the occurrence of cytokine storms."
"A randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) showed that high-dose vitamin D reduced the proportion of hospitalized COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. In an observational study of 4599 US military veterans, the hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 infection decreased from 24.1 to 18.7% (P = 0.009) when the patients' serum 25(OH)D levels increased from 15 to 60 ng/ml, and the death rate decreased from 10.4 to 5.7% (P = 0.001). Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency were associated with increased severity and unfavorable outcome after 28 days."
virusrex
This is how authors express something that does not have statistical significance, it appears to do something but when analyzed statistically this trend is not significative, more likely to be caused by random chance than by causality.
Which again, is only important at levels where clinical signs are present, not at times where the "deficiency" is only a laboratory finding, that is the whole point of this study, that even people having reduced levels (according to their laboratories) have zero disadvantage against covid when compared with people with levels above this arbitrary cutoff value.
The study includes the discussion part, where it is explained this in great detail and it represents the most best current evidence that proves that for patients without cliinical signs of deficiency supplementation of vitamin D do not represent an advantage, since obviously 40% of the population are not showing signs of vitamin deficiency this is what actually applies to the population in general.
falseflagsteve
Poor outcomes for Covid were higher for those with Vitamin D deficiency especially prevalent amongst darker skinned individuals. That combined with obesity and its related health issues makes many very vulnerable to any type of illness and also treatments which are less effective in the obese due to their inefficient immune systems.
i have ensured I have certain things in my daily to maintain health and fitness. Average of 30 eggs a week, plenty of fatty fish, generally tuna and a decent amount of veggies and beans. That with an active lifestyle and strength workouts has done me fine since my teens.
Raw Beer
Seems my comment was cut at the "less than" symbol. So I'm trying again without those symbols.
But in that study, the mean vitD level of the supplemented group was only 31.1 ng/mL, which is not very high. More than enough to prevent rickets, but not optimal for good immunity. If one takes vitD to protect against Covid, they should aim higher.
Compare that to the veterans study mentioned in the intro:
After adjusting for all covariates, including race/ethnicity and poverty, there was a significant independent inverse dose-response relationship between increasing continuous 25(OH)D concentrations (from 15 to 60 ng/mL) and decreasing probability of COVID-19-related hospitalization (from 24.1 to 18.7%, p=0.009) and mortality (from 10.4 to 5.7%, p=0.001).
Deo Gratias
I take supplements of Vitamin C, D, and E every day. I started doing it during COVID.
I only got COVID once (everyone else seems to have had it at least two or three times).
And I think I've had one cold in the last three years, maybe two.
I highly recommend it.
Zaphod
Wick's pencil
Yes, but you know, we are up against "all world-wide wide experts and respected institutions", which according to some here all say the opposite...
Zaphod
Deo Gratias
Only vitamin D for me, as I assume I get enough of the others from eating healthy.
I used to have colds and other little problems all the time back then when I was stupid and eating junk.
Since then, the only thing I caught was Covid once (with only mild symptoms), and last year that Novovirus (which lasted one, albeit horrible, night). No influenza, cold, etc any more.
iron man
I thought that the current recommended vigorous exercise for elementary/ secondary school aged children was 60minutes per day, (whatever, it keeps them warm).
Jimizo
Feel the free thinking.
Alternative media podcast watchers are undoubtedly the go to source regarding medical matters.
Same goes for climate science, foreign affairs and other matters of importance.
Does eating insects ( which we be forced to eat ) have any positive effects regarding tiredness?
Also, would an insect-only diet mean we’d never fart, burp or produce earwax?
Wick's pencil
Who is doing that? All the comments above are based on science, such as RawBeer's quotes of the scientific literature. Actual quotes, not the faulty interpretations that some have a habit of doing.
Jimizo
I’m just saying alternative media podcast watchers are the go to people on a wide range of issues - medical matters, climate science, foreign affairs, what makes movies successful and gender issues.
I was told by these people that we’ll be forced to eat insects by elites, the WEF and big something or other.
I was wondering about their nutritional value. I was going to research it myself but was afraid any information I’d get would be from bought and paid for, MSM-watching shills who are misleading us all.
What do you think on this?
GBR48
Your body needs regular access to relatively small amounts of vitamins and nutrients and needs to be properly hydrated to function. The jury is out on how well retail supplements (as distinct from injections) can be absorbed into the body. Your best bet is a healthy diet that covers all the bases, in what it includes and what it excludes, together with regular exercise. Before bothering with supplements, go to your doctor and get tested to see if you are low on anything. If you have a decent health service, you may get any supplements you need for free.
Fatigue can be a symptom associated with other medical problems, so if you do feel really below par, a medical check is an idea.
If it makes you feel happier, a general multi-vitamin supplement won't do you any harm. Your body will take anything in it needs from it, if anything. You can overdose on supplements but you have to consume crazy amounts - just read the label.
In general, regular exercise and good hydration may be all you need.
Women aged 18-44 are more likely to be dealing with work, household and family chores (child/elder care), so may be more stressed than most people anyway. And stress does run you down. In that case, supplements won't be much help other than plugging extant deficiencies.
You catch viruses if you come into contact with people who have them and get too close. Masks help reduce this. Whilst your general health matters when coping with all illness, and vaccines should limit your symptoms, no supplement will give you immunity from catching a virus or make much difference to how ill you feel. Other variables matter more.
Nobody is forcing anyone to eat insects, although if you eat farm animals and drink the breast milk of cows, I don't see why you should be worried about eating bugs. They are a cheap source of protein for anyone who wants or needs to eat them, and people in some countries do. If you are worried, read the label before you eat stuff, and reduce the amount of processed food you eat.
Cochineal, a scale insect, has been used for centuries as a carmine dye in food, clothes and lipsticks.
virusrex
Again, this level is arbitrary and much higher than necessary to stop having any kind of clinical signs of deficiency, the results clearly demonstrate supplementation did not result in any benefit, and definitely this contradicts the claim that 40% of the people would benefit from it against infections, the study is very clear about it. There is zero evidence that levels above this produce any benefit, claiming otherwise requires evidence that you have not provided.
The best available evidence is that unless the person is clinically deficient there is no benefit from supplements, anecdotal evidence (specially uncontrolled or hearsay) is many levels below the evidence necessary to refute this.
If you have a systematic bias to disregard scientific information and instead believe unconditionally what nameless people in the internet say that is not a problem of the scientific community but yours.
Trying to use older, less adequate studies to contradict better ones is definitely a faulty way to discuss, specially when it is made to support claims that are not supported in the article such as your original one. This is specially important when a study has been described as biased because of increased access to medical attention and orientation on the intervention group. Others studies have reached the same conclusion, no benefit observed even after very strong doses
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33595634/
Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a single high dose of vitamin D3, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay. The findings do not support the use of a high dose of vitamin D3 for treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071245
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071230
Among people aged 16 years and older with a high baseline prevalence of suboptimal vitamin D status, implementation of a population level test-and-treat approach to vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a reduction in risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection or covid-19.
At the end supplementing vitamin D for respiratory infections is useful only when the person is clinically deficient, but that is a very low percentage of the population, The 40% of people with "low levels" end up without any benefit from supplementation even if that puts them well above what is considered adequate. It is also important to understand that vitamins can cause health problem when consumed in excess.
Raw Beer
We've been over this many times before, why do you keep bringing it up? It takes days for your body to convert VitD3 to the active compound. So obviously giving it ounce you're hospitalized will have little or no effect. One should ensure they have high levels (over 40 ng/mL) before getting infected, not simply over "clinical deficiency".
If however, they give calcifediol (closer to the final active compound) instead of vitD3, the effects are very impressive:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32871238/
Raw Beer
Same here: one very mild Covid, and no cold or flu in many years. I take vitD3 in winter and whenever I can't get enough sun exposure. And of course I avoid the shots...
virusrex
If it had any kind of effect it would be detectable in these kind of studies, this is called "moving the goalposts" when something is found to be ineffective the excuse from antiscientific people is to make up things that were not done properly, the same as with HCQ or ivermectin, that were supposedly used too late or too soon, or too little or too much, at the end it does not matter how many times it is proved it does not work some people will insist against all evidence that their irrational choices must work, but the whole scientific and medical community of the world is in an impossible conspiracy to hide it, so everybody uses it "wrong". That is not even remotely believable.
Not really, the first reference is about supplementation long before infection and it still ended up not working at all, what you are trying to do is using lower quality studies to try and refute higher quality ones, that is deeply antiscientific and invalid, pilot studies frequently give erroneous signals, which is why interventions with higher number of patients, better controlled, with better characterizations are much better indications of what actually happens or not.
Zaphod
Jimizo
What I think of this is that your world-view seems quite simplistic..... splitting the world into deplorables who only watch unspecified "media podcasts" spreading false information and the enlightened ones who only get their information from mainstream media who represent the pure indisputable truth as represented by "world-wide experts and respected institutions" is not exactly a correct description of the situation. It is a tad more nuanced...
Raw Beer
That makes as much sense as expecting a vaccine to have a positive effect when administered upon hospitalization.
Yeah, but as I mentioned above, the mean levels of the "supplemented" group was not very high and they still concluded with "Adequate vitamin D had a tendency to prevent COVID-19."
Raw Beer
Larger does not make it higher quality. It does however tend to correlate with greater funding.
The calcifediol study I referenced was indeed just a pilot study, but the results were very impressive:
"Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50 %)"
I mentioned it because it was referenced in the study you referenced. Since that 2020 study, further studies have been done with calcifediol, all showing a positive effect.
For example, from one such study:
"Out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 20 (4.5%) required the ICU, compared to 82 (21%) out of 391 nontreated (P
Jimizo
Oh, no. I’m just absolutely astounded at how in lockstep our alternative media podcast watchers/free-thinkers are on a variety of topics. Stunning discipline. Watertight. I think of well choreographed K-pop bands.
So, what do you think about the nutritional value of insects?
I was told the elites, WEF and big something or other was going to force them on us.
Zaphod
JImizo
Ironically, that is exactly what you can say about the legacy media and the "world-wide institutions" with their heavy connections to governments and pharma.
So how do you decide which information is more valid?
virusrex
Scientific discussion is not being done on mainstream media, this is just an misrepresentation to avoid recognizing the actual primary sources clearly contradict what you want to believe, so you try to make it as if the information was originated in media instead of just being reported, obviously invalid.
No it does not, because vaccination depends on immune processes that take weeks, not day, this evidence a lack of understanding of the processes.
And this is still completely refuted as goalpost moving since the levels are well above what is considered adequate, which still completely debunks the claim.
Larger is one of the requirements to make better quality research because to make statistical determinations larger numbers, better controls, more adequate methods etc. are part of what increases the quality, making baseless claims about funding is not even an argument without evidence that it is present and important, or that it explains any problems with a report, this specially applies when you have identified no problem with the research.
No, they are not precisely because the study is a pilot, which by design easily misrepresent the reality in order to find any kind of signal, even spurious, the role of pilot studies is to justify bigger and better studies as the one I referenced where the actual signal can be distinguished from noise, as long as it exist, which in this case is not possible.
This is exactly what I mean, lower quality studies that have higher risk of reporting false positives are useful to justify later studies that can eliminate this problem with better design, going back to the pilot when the subsequent study refutes your belief is deeply antiscientific and evidence an antiscientific bias, that alone disqualify the approach.
Linnks that you keep claiming explains why zero institutions on any country around the globe support what you want to believe, without providing any evidence of this being the case. This makes it natural to disregard these claims as excuses, not arguments.
Raw Beer
Again, the supplementation level in your study is much lower than what is recommended, so although it is a larger study, it is not a better one. Typical of the studies designed to show lack of effectiveness, and yet they still ended up concluding: "Adequate vitamin D had a tendency to prevent COVID-19."
I agree that the initial 2020 calcifediol study was a pilot study, but they continued studying it with larger studies and they all showed considerable effectiveness;
Out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 20 (4.5%) required the ICU, compared to 82 (21%) out of 391 nontreated.
You completely ignored this fact, implying that we only have the initial 2020 pilot study.
virusrex
No, that is a personal belief not supported by the current medical consensus, the supplementation was enough to put the levels in blood well above what is considered normal, so it is not lower than recommeded, this is just the excuse you want to use to avoid recognizing that perfectly valid supplementation had no protective effect. There is no actual scientific criticism of the study about the supplementation used, just you making up a completely arbitrary reason without any actual source.
No it does not, this study is an example of how further studies are conducted after a pilot study shows some signal, better controls, better determinations designed specifically to avoid recognizing noise as significant end up doing just that and prove that the pilot study was simply too sensitive and not enough specific, which is fine, after all that is the purpose of a pilot study, likely to be wrong on the side of over detection.
You are the one that says treating patients at admission is as valid as vaccinating them at admission, you contradict yourself and use double standards to refuse to accept perfectly valid evidence. According to you this approach is worthless to study supplementation, yet you now say it proves something. That is illogical and evidence deep antiscientific bias.
Raw Beer
Yeah, when you treat them with vitD3, because it takes several days for your body to convert it to the final active compound (and then some time to produce the desired immunological effect). But if you treat with calcifediol, it takes much less time to be converted to the active compound.
So I'll summarize for the last time: To prevent Covid19 infection or hospitalization, take vitD or get sun exposure to reach high levels (at least 40ng/ml). If you get sick and suspect you have low levels, taking vitD3 won't help much (it's too late) but taking high doses of calcifediol should greatly speed up recovery. That is what the evidence shows.
Raw Beer
Yes it does. Again, you are criticizing their study as just being a pilot study. But the same group carried out several studies over the years, after the 2020 pilot study. They all showed that calcifediol was very effective.
I purposely quoted in bold the result of one such study because you missed it the first time, but you seem to have missed it again. So I will kindly quote it again for you:
Out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 20 (4.5%) required the ICU, compared to 82 (21%) out of 391 nontreated.
virusrex
Again, no actual source supports this arbitrary claim you are making no criticism has been made of the sources that prove supplementation is done adequately and still no beneficial effect is observed when studies that are done to actually investigate if the exploratory reports actually are finding actual signal, and the results are clear and valid, making up reasons to cherry pick well designed studies without any actual reference that proves the reasons have clinical importance is clear evidence of a personal bias.
No, I am criticizing you for cherry picking a pilot study and ignoring the actual investigation done that disproves what you want to believe, any and all references that support the current consensus of science (that no benefit is observed from vitamin D supplementation for respiratory infections on patients that do not have clinical signs of deficiency) you make up claims that you want to consider disqualify them, and instead go down to less reliable sources just because they appeared to support those beliefs.
It is simply impossible to believe anonymous people on the internet that have shown such invalid reasonings and self contradictory arguments can have a better idea than people that conduct and interpret research professionally and do it for decades around the world.
I mean, you can't find any actual scientific report that refutes the sources you want to ignore, and it is very easy to find respected institutions of science around the world that say supplementation have no real role (again, outside of the very few that have actual clinical signs of deficiency) for infections like covid, that is the minimum amount and quality of evidence that you require to support the claims you make.
Wick's pencil
I think he missed it again.
You're the one cherry picking the pilot study and ignoring all the later studies on calcifediol.
Missed that too?
40% of the population have levels that increase their probability of infection and negative outcome.
That 30ng/ml vitamin D has little effect? It's just 10ng/ml above deficiency.
I agree!
Zaphod
David Grimes on Vitamin D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-uzGkCjiKQ&t=2s
Is he more convincing or a "respected worldwide institution" like, say, the FDA which is funded 70% by pharma companies. But yeah, I know this is a "bro podcast", LOL
Wick's pencil
Great video, thanks!
He also recommends having at least 40ng/ml vitamin D.
virusrex
Missed the failure to support the claim that a metabolic pathway that takes a few hours somehow makes one study good and another invalid? that is still a fallacy based on lack of understanding of basic vitamin metabolism. It is as valid as saying that one study that ended up demonstrating lack of value is invalid because the vitamin was administered on the veins of the hand instead of the arm, and that "delay" causes the lack of action.
What later studies from the one that I already referenced? it is from 2024, with treatment long before even infection. Which is why the institutions coincide on not considering vitamin D supplementation significant for most of the population against infections.
No, they don't no institution of medical science support this false claim you like to repeat, the "low" levels on 40% of the population end up not being a disadvantage against infection as the reference I provided clearly proves, making the people have higher than desired levels ended up giving no benefit.
Which is still a 30% increase, and that would solve the difference the 40% of the population have with the other 60%, you are just describing how your claim can be proved baseless.
He is not an institution, he for example provides no discussion on the studies that demonstrate lack of benefit from supplementation for people that do not have clinical signs of deficiency, which include the vast majority of people with "low" levels, no mention on the situation in Japan either, where most senior people have low levels yet the incidence of hospitalizations and deaths have been consistently low, he consistently talks about a degree that would produce rickets, which obviously means clinically evident deficiency (and in no way present in 40% of the people).
So you consider this source reliable? because he is very vocal on the deep dangers of antivaxxer groups and how wrong they are on everything they try to promote.
Wick's pencil
Not a few hours, but several days. I have consistently heard experts researching vitamin D say that it takes several days. I have even seen 7 days in one source.
Everything else you wrote is equally false, not worth responding. Did you read the papers you're referencing?
Wick's pencil
A 30 % increase from deficiency. Wow!
A properly designed study should have supplemented more, to achieve at least 40ng/ml for every member of the supplemented arm.
virusrex
Which source? Are you misrepresenting time to peak as the time to achieve therapeutic levels? because that would be deeply misleading or betray complete lack of knowledge of basic metabolism concepts. And that is also ignoring the differences in excretion and variation of levels that are advantageous to cholecalciferol use.
The moment you could not even address something it becomes clear you have no argument to refute anything, so the easy exit is to baselessly claim everything is false without being able to prove it with arguments.
No, a 30% from the final value, that is a 50% increase from the original value, which completely and unequivocally corrects even the laboratory based deficiency (without any clinical signs). This is a huge difference on levels, would you also consider irrelevant having an increase of systolic blood pressure from 120 to 180 mm Hg? because that is the same kind of change.
The medical professionals that wrote the article (and those that read it) do not share this personal claim you make and consider the supplementation on the article perfectly valid and correct, pretending a completely subjective and personal idea about what is "proper" is what the actual professionals say about the source is completely invalid and also misleading.
Raw Beer
Why are you correcting WP? You made the initial mistake when you said it was a 30% increase.
The point is that the % increase is not important. If someone has a value of 1ng/ml and increases it by 1000%, they would still be deficient.
The point is that the "supplemented" values were rather low, below what is recommended by those experts who have been studying vitD for a very long time and recommend supplementing to at least 40 mg/ml.
Raw Beer
Checking the discussion section of the paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66267-8), I noticed the following:
"Vitamin D deficiency has become an "epidemic" and is common in all age groups. In 2011, the US Endocrine Society together with other scientific societies upgraded their standards to indicate that thresholds of vitamin D and serum 25(OH)D levels of less than 20 ng/ml were defined as vitamin D deficiency, 20 ng/mL to 30 ng/mL were insufficient, and greater than 30 ng/ml was adequate. Our study showed that the total proportion of serum 25(OH)D deficiency (82.7%) and insufficiency (12.4%) in 202 subjects was 92.0%, the ratio of vitamin D sufficiency was only 4.9%, and severe vitamin D deficiency with serum 25(OH)D of less than 10 ng/ml accounted for 13.9%."
"Current studies have found that vitamin D deficiency is closely related to bone diseases, immune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, tumors, diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease and others. The benefit-risk ratio of vitamin D supplementation is higher, and vitamin D safety is better. Vitamin D supplementation at 100,000 IU/month did not increase kidney stone risk or serum calcium in 5110 participants. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the level of active vitamin D through sunshine, dietary and drug supplementation."
Gee, that is exactly what I have been doing and saying for years, but some who pretend to know better continue to say otherwise...something about all the respected institutes of science of the world. And they claim that this study is superior to all others despite the authors themselves listing a number of serious limitations.
Also, from the above quote, the mean value of the supplemented group is barely adequate.
virusrex
Because it makes no sense to criticize a difference of 30% (from the final concentration) while saying the opposite result comes from the "huge" difference of 25% of the supposedly "effective" concentration.
Which is exactly why the correction is there, pretending this is a small difference while explaining the lack of efficacy on an even smaller difference is deeply irrational.
You still have brought exactly zero experts that say the study is invalid because of the levels of supplementation, you are just repeating your personal opinion as if making an appeal to personal authority, which makes no sense from anonymous accounts. If the experts that have studied vitamin D have no problem with the referenced report that still means it is valid and correct and the conclusions supported by the evidence and methods, even if you personally refuse to accept them.
Which together with the results lead to the conclusion that the "deficiency" so common is not important for the activity of the immune system against respiratory infections, it may be of importance to other problems, but since supplementation that corrects the "deficiency" had zero benefits against the infection it means the immune system works equally at levels considered "low" for other things, this is not difficult to understand, supplementation can have OTHER benefits, but against infections like covid levels that avoid having clinical signs (true for the vast majority of the population) are adequate.
Is adequate, brought no benefits, you have brought no expert that says this invalidates the results, repeating what you personally want to believe about them is not an argument that refute these facts.
Raw Beer
Based on what? Your paper says:
"subjects with serum 25(OH)D group with less than 20 ng/mL (group A, n = 85) had a positive infection rate of 58.9% , the serum 25(OH)D group between 20 and 30 ng/mL (group B, n = 44) had a positive infection rate of 52.4%, and the serum 25(OH)D greater than 30 ng/mL (group C, n = 44) had a positive infection rate of 44.6%."
So even at levels that are barely "adequate" there is some benefit. But how does this very limited study (the authors admitted the limitations) disprove all the other research that shows a strong protective effect from vitD?
But the studies with calcifediol blows that idea out of the water:
"Out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 20 (4.5%) required the ICU, compared to 82 (21%) out of 391 nontreated."
Unfortunately, few countries (e.g. Spain, Italy) provide calcifediol over the counter.
virusrex
On the conclusions of the paper, obviously the authors know much more about it than you, specially when you make mischaracterizations
Our findings indicated that the administration of vitamin D2 did not significantly reduce the rate of COVID-19, and it was not related to COVID-19 symptoms in health care workers.
No, there is no benefit, when a difference is not statistically significative it means it is inside of the variance that is expected, once again the authors of the paper are much more reliable sources about what the report found than you.
No the don't because apart from your baseless claim that cholecalciferol is the reason why this effect was not observed in the referenced study this is not something that experts actually support as correct. Once again you were not able to bring any actual expert that support your personal belief, which means the experts are much more likely to be correct and the report disproved what you wanted to believe. You have been repeatedly challenged to bring any actual expert that support what you claim, and you repeatedly have been unable to do it.