alt Hacker NewsIt's pretty safe to assume all hyped supplements are pointless. Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy.
> almost everyone is Vitamin D deficient
This was the red flag that made me realize it was BS early on. If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.
Replies
> If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.
Most people are overweight. Does that make being a healthy weight not that important?
> is like 80% of the work for being healthy
I would suspect you're a man under 60.
I don't think your statement applies to the elderly (e.g. my mum needing D and Calcium for osteoporosis).
And I've seen many active healthy female friends under 60 actually need suppliments (I'm ignoring the stereotypical yoga worried well): plus pregnancy or health issues have an impact too.
But maybe I'm a victim of sampling bias since the men I know seem much less likely to see a doctor.
> Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy.
Except for the things that you get from sunlight, not diet.
> If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.
But nobody who lives in e.g. East Africa and spends a lot of time outdoors is deficient.
So it's actually pretty reasonable to say that a modern indoor lifestyle combined with long winters would truly lead most people in those regions to being deficient.
Pretty much the only one with a real consensus around it is creatine. And even that has debate around the right dose
> Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy.
I suspect that a relatively low percentage of people in a solid number of wealthy countries meet these qualifications.
> If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.
This isn't sound logic. Something being common doesn't make it unimportant or less of a problem.