Vitamin D in the pandemic

 

Vitamin D in the pandemic

Vitamin D in the pandemic or how consumer advocates confuse the population - could be the title of this article. The German Nutrition Society explains surprising things about the correct supply of vitamin D in times of a pandemic.

informationntechnology

Confusion Part 1: How you can get vitamin D despite a ban on contact

In times of a pandemic, in particular, you should know how to supply yourself with vitamin D despite the ban on contact lifebloombeauty.

If this statement makes you feel like your brain is knotting, then that is perfectly normal. It is an apologist. An apologist describes an illogical state of affairs. A famous example of this is the phrase, "It's colder at night than outside futuretechexpert."

Nevertheless, one finds the statement "Despite the ban on contact, you can now do something for your vitamin D household" in a press release on the German Nutrition Society (DGE) on the subject of vitamin D supply during a pandemic.

gethealthandbeauty

The DGE is an independent scientific specialist society that sees its tasks in nutrition education and quality assurance in nutrition advice and education and thereby wants to contribute to the population's health. The association is funded 70 percent by the federal and state governments and has an annual budget of over 8 million euros.

There is no connection between a ban on contact and vitamin D.

The sentence in question is alogical and absurd because the vitamin D household makes no difference whether one maintains contact or not - unless it concerns a ban on contact with the sun, which is excluded given the DGE text content can.

Because you don't read anything about the sun there (and THAT in an article about vitamin D, vitamin or hormone that can be formed in the skin, especially with the help of the sun), instead, one learns astonishingly that "taking vitamin D preparations in low doses (7.5 to 100 µg per day or 35 to 500 µg per week) can reduce the frequency of acute respiratory infections".

It is astonishing because 100 µg is not a very low dose, which corresponds to 4,000 IU of vitamin D, which is quite decent considering the daily dose of 800 IU usually recommended by the DGE.

Confusion Part 2: viruses can also cause acute respiratory infections

But then it is immediately rowed back again - with the following sentences: "Based on the results of the study so far, no general recommendation for the intake of vitamin D supplements for the prevention of acute respiratory infections can be made. Acute respiratory conditions can have various causes, for example, viral or bacterial infections. "

Such a statement on the part of supposed experts is now surprising again; it is almost another algorism. It sounds like the DGE editorial team believes that a vitamin D deficiency can be just as much a cause of acute respiratory infections as viruses and bacteria.

technologybeam

To disentangle the problem, the following information:

 

Ø  Ninety percent of all acute respiratory diseases can be traced back to viruses. The small remainder is bacterial or, in exceptional cases (with pronounced immune deficiency), caused by fungi.

Ø  Vitamin D deficiency is not a cause of respiratory illnesses. Still, a risk factor - a factor that leads to a weakened immune system and in this way makes the body more susceptible to viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc smarttechpros.

Confusion Part 3: 800 IU of vitamin D is enough, even if you need more

Back to the DGE press release: After it has been explained that taking vitamin D in doses of up to 4,000 IU (mostly if there was a previous deficiency) can reduce the frequency of respiratory diseases, it is finally advised to take vitamin D in the form of preparations Only to be taken if the vitamin D supply cannot be ensured through the skin's synthesis and nutrition.

We agree. At this point, an association that cares about people's health should advise you to have your vitamin D level determined and then to take the individually required amount of vitamin D (see link at the bottom).

Not so the DGE. At this point, this indicates an intake of 20 µg (= 800 IU) of vitamin D per day as "adequate" if the body does not produce it naturally.

You can't stop being amazed. Although daily doses of up to 4,000 IU are described above as useful, whereby the effectiveness of a vitamin D supplementation - according to the DGE - depends on the vitamin D status, suddenly 800 IU are sufficient for everyone - and that even if the body does not produce the vitamin itself!

Conclusion: Vitamin D in a pandemic - this is how you are adequately supplied

We summarize the matter as follows:

The adequate supply of vitamin D in a pandemic (or outside a pandemic) has nothing to do with a possibly existing ban on contact. (Unless you cannot leave the house to soak up the sun without the help of other people, the DGE did not address this).

It is wrong that everyone is well supplied with a daily dose of 800 IU of vitamin D.

On the other hand, it is correct that the dosage and intake of vitamin D supplements should be individual. The daily vitamin D dose required can significantly exceed the 800 IU specified by the DGE as a guide value. How to do this, see the following link for the correct vitamin D intake.