The hypothesis being tested is that the blood level of vitamin D is relevant for the outcomes. You think they should test another hypothesis but that doesn’t mean the original researchers are stupid.
I didn’t call individuals stupid but I spoke about the practice they follow. I also don’t call 18st century scientists stupid even when a lot of their mental models were stupid from the perspective of knowing what I know today.
In this case, before you spend a lot of money on a long term mortality study it’s better to run a few smaller studies to gauge whether variables such as the timing have an effect.
If I am interested in the effect of vitamin D on overall mortality, it’s kinda difficult to “see the effect on [my]self”.
Until the VITAL study get’s completed it’s also impossible to get that data elsewhere directly. Just that you don’t misunderstand myself, I don’t oppose that fact that the VITAL study get’s run. It’s better value for money than many other things nutrition academics fund.
I mean at the moment we have the situation that we do have a meta review that says that we can expect to gain two years of life expectancy via daily 2000 UI vitamin D supplements.
We have other academics that are less optimistic. But nearly nobody claims that taking 2000 UI vitamin D is really dangerous. Academics have different opinions on whether you should take vitamin D supplements.
Additionally you don’t lose anything as an individual if you take your vitamin D in the morning because of anecdotal evidence. Even if the timing doesn’t matter you still get the benefit.
Yes, but you’re confused between blindly following authority and looking at data from people other than yourself.
I never said that one shouldn’t look at data from people other than yourself. I said you shouldn’t simply copy their way of modeling the problem. Even when it comes to something like hypnosis/NLP I’m perfectly willing to read academic papers and try to understand the empirical observations that they made. I might not agree with the interpretation but I’m not one to turn down good data.
There no good data at all for the claim that taking blood vitamin measurements and changing the amount of vitamin D supplements that you consume based on that data does anything for you that’s better than just taking 2000UI (or 5000UI). That not something that they studied as far as I knowledge is concerned.
Kant was explicit in his papers that one shouldn’t use his doctor has authority for one’s health to override your own self determination.
I didn’t call individuals stupid but I spoke about the practice they follow. I also don’t call 18st century scientists stupid even when a lot of their mental models were stupid from the perspective of knowing what I know today.
In this case, before you spend a lot of money on a long term mortality study it’s better to run a few smaller studies to gauge whether variables such as the timing have an effect.
Until the VITAL study get’s completed it’s also impossible to get that data elsewhere directly. Just that you don’t misunderstand myself, I don’t oppose that fact that the VITAL study get’s run. It’s better value for money than many other things nutrition academics fund.
I mean at the moment we have the situation that we do have a meta review that says that we can expect to gain two years of life expectancy via daily 2000 UI vitamin D supplements.
We have other academics that are less optimistic. But nearly nobody claims that taking 2000 UI vitamin D is really dangerous. Academics have different opinions on whether you should take vitamin D supplements.
Additionally you don’t lose anything as an individual if you take your vitamin D in the morning because of anecdotal evidence. Even if the timing doesn’t matter you still get the benefit.
I never said that one shouldn’t look at data from people other than yourself. I said you shouldn’t simply copy their way of modeling the problem. Even when it comes to something like hypnosis/NLP I’m perfectly willing to read academic papers and try to understand the empirical observations that they made. I might not agree with the interpretation but I’m not one to turn down good data.
There no good data at all for the claim that taking blood vitamin measurements and changing the amount of vitamin D supplements that you consume based on that data does anything for you that’s better than just taking 2000UI (or 5000UI). That not something that they studied as far as I knowledge is concerned.
Kant was explicit in his papers that one shouldn’t use his doctor has authority for one’s health to override your own self determination.