|
|
|
|
|
by batrachom
2145 days ago
|
|
This article is (badly) written by un-qualified authors (two software developers). This would be enough to raise at least a few red flags on the conclusions drawn here.
Has it even been peer reviewed?
From a first look, there no way this work would have been published by any reputable journal. If there is any truth in what the authors claim, the best they could do is to work with field experts and/or submit their findings to a reputable journal for review and publishing.
Someone's health might be on the line following pseudo-scientific works. |
|
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/96/7/1911/2833671
You can see that prevalence of deficiency is very high, as this other peer-reviewed study confirms:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/
In the first article, after correcting the deficiency, the maintenance dose that they give is: 600-1000 IU/d for children; 1500–2000 IU/d for adults; 3000–6000 IU/d for obese. As you can see that's much higher than the current RDA of 400 IU/d.
And to correct the deficiency in the first place, the dose needs to be 2-3 times higher still for 8 weeks.
So around half the people in the US need to be taking a very large dose for 8 weeks, and then a maintenance dose 4-15 times higher than the RDA.
This is all from established studies done long ago that no one has disputed. But their recommendations have yet to be implemented in a lot of places, which might be why some countries fare better than others.