Paul Saladino· MD
42% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
42% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
it's not uncommon here in the US to see people unsupplemented you know easily being in the 30s
but it's not uncommon here in the US to see people unsupplemented um you know easily being in the 30s that's that's not un that's not uncommon
And what would make, I mean, of course, you know, viruses are different, but I mean, a respiratory tract infection, you know, to some degree, there's got to be some common denominators, right? I mean, so, to me, it would seem, you know, logical that something like vitamin D, where, in the United States, you know, 70% of the U.S. population is categorized as vitamin D insufficient, which defined by the endocrine society is less than 30 nanograms per milliliter. And 30% of the U.S. population is what is called vitamin D deficient, so they have less than 20 nanograms per milliliter of blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is the major, you know, circulating metabolite of vitamin D.