Thank you for the informative post.
There is not a single week passing without good news about benefits of higher Vitamin D intake compared to RDA and this is surely one important addition.
However, I see limitations in applying it to myself as I am not a woman, hence prostate cancer, a concern of mine, is not considered. The authors also recognize a cancer non-specificity. Also, skin cancer, another concern of mine, is not included either.
Also it should be useful a mapping into the genetics which is not carried in the study. Dr Rhonda Patrick gives particular consideration to the CYP2R1 gene and rs10741657, rs12794714 and rs2060793. While my genotype is such the first two might tend to somehow “neutralize” as particularly associated to resp. higher and lower level of vitamin D, the 3rd one is associated to a lower level but higher longevity hence supporting a cautionary approach in rushing to conclusions.
I still feel that my level (average 36.2 ng/ml (90 nmol/l) over 10 years) is not bad but I am ready to reconsider it to the light of the new study. Surely, I will ask my wife to retest and increase intake as she also has different cancer risks than mine. LEF has been advocating since a while a > 50 ng/dL (125 nmol/l) level, e.g. here. I have been always a bit skeptic to the light of the discussion on LC and risks of mortality, likely due to CVD, and my own 23andMe risk of atrial fibrillation.
I am scheduled to retest in summer after one year on a supplementation of 1000-2000 IU (summer and winter). I also kept using moderate K2 and increased magnesium due to potential problems with absorption. If I turn to be in the range of 30-35 ng/ml I might try to push it to the 40 or bit more as a new personal optimum and first step before more relevant evidence comes out. Will see .....
Edited by albedo, 09 April 2016 - 03:35 PM.