The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
Of course, I think that, if we look at the literature, the scientific literature, it is extremely hard to get hypercalcemia, which would be the major concern with really high levels of vitamin D3 supplementation. I mean, we're talking like hundreds of thousands of IU a day for a long time.
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.
1,000 to 5,000 IUs for most people will be reasonably safe. If we look at the the the literature, the scientific literature, it is extremely hard to get like hypercalcemia, which would be the major concern with really high levels of vitamin D3 supplementation. I mean, we're talking like hundreds of thousands of IU a day for a long time.
So there was a study where these Polish scientists looked at the Mayo Clinic's database, and they looked at 20,000 people. And we've talked about this in our in their video that we recently published, one person had hypercalcemia, out of those 20,000. And they had ranges, people supplementing anywhere from 0 to 55,000 units a day. And really just one person. And that person's vitamin D level, if I recall correctly, was up in the 200, 300 range. That's nanograms per milliliter.