Andrew Huberman· PhD
typically, if you don't have one of those SNPs, for the most part, taking 1,000 IUs of vitamin D will raise blood levels by around five nanograms per milliliter.
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.
typically, if you don't have one of those SNPs, for the most part, taking 1,000 IUs of vitamin D will raise blood levels by around five nanograms per milliliter.
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.
Many people nowadays supplement with vitamin D anywhere from a thousand IUS to 5,000 IUS that folks out there who perhaps even take 10,000 IUS seems a bit high for most people
So let's say you're deficient, you're 20 nanogs per milliliter and you want to get to 40. You're going to need at least 4,000 IUs.
typically, if you don't have one of those snips for for the most part, taking 1,000 IUs of vitamin D will raise blood levels by around 5 nanogs per milliliter.
Generally, 1,000IU = 5ng/ml, plenty of individual variation, however.
Probably don't need 5,000 unless have gene polymorphism.