> Everything you say is subjective (at best) or tautological (at worst) until you put a number to what you are calling a "megadose" or "excessive."
The Vitamin D blood level range is clearly indicated on the blood test results. That’s why I suggested that people get the blood test.
Blood test shows too little Vitamin D? Supplement more. Blood test shows you’re approaching or exceeding the upper limit? Supplement less.
There’s nothing subjective about it.
> the current official RDA of vit D is about 4-5x TOO LOW and was based on bad data (or a misinterpretation of the data).
This claim, however, is unbounded. We can’t just go around telling people “more is better” and that the official recommendations are vaguely “too low” and expect people to just guess at the real range.
> This claim, however, is unbounded. We can’t just go around telling people “more is better” and that the official recommendations are vaguely “too low” and expect people to just guess at the real range.
I don't understand this sentence at all. 4-5x is an extremely specific amount, with no guessing.
The Vitamin D blood level range is clearly indicated on the blood test results. That’s why I suggested that people get the blood test.
Blood test shows too little Vitamin D? Supplement more. Blood test shows you’re approaching or exceeding the upper limit? Supplement less.
There’s nothing subjective about it.
> the current official RDA of vit D is about 4-5x TOO LOW and was based on bad data (or a misinterpretation of the data).
This claim, however, is unbounded. We can’t just go around telling people “more is better” and that the official recommendations are vaguely “too low” and expect people to just guess at the real range.