First, when taking omega 3 supplements, you generally care about increasing the ratio of omega 3 to omega 6. Hemp hearts have much more omega 6 than omega 3, so they're not very effective for improving the ratio.
Second, hemp hearts contain ALA, while what you generally want to improve is EPA and DHA (this is also covered in TFA). The body can convert ALA to EPA and DHA, but it's not efficient.
So all in all, if Omega 3 for the article's stated benefits is what you want, this is not the way. I recommend looking into eating more fish, or if you want a vegan route, algae-based supplements. [0] is a decent source from the NIH about foods and their Omega 3 content, split by ALA/EPA/DHA.
[0]: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthPro...
Flax seeds are even better just for Omega 3 at 1:3, but hemp hearts have other benefits, like more protein, which is why I called them out. That said, I eat a fair amount of flax seeds as well.
This is not to say that they're unhealthy of course.
EDIT: see the sibling comment by code_biologist, it's much more comprehensive than what I've written.
The main problem with ALA is that to have the good effects attributed to omega-3s, it must be converted by a limited supply of enzymes into EPA and DHA. As a result, only a small fraction of it has omega-3's effects — 10%–15%, maybe less. The remaining 85%–90% gets burned up as energy or metabolized in other ways. So in terms of omega-3 "power," a tablespoon of flaxseed oil is worth about 700 milligrams (mg) of EPA and DHA. That's still more than the 300 mg of EPA and DHA in many 1-gram fish oil capsules, but far less than what the 7 grams listed on the label might imply.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/why-not-flaxseed...
Also, beware of omega 6 fats. Seed oils (corn, soy, canola) used in commercial food products are incredibly omega 6 dominant in terms of polyunsaturated fat content. Consequently, the ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 fats we consume has plummeted as food production has industrialized. Omega 3 fats are precursors to generally anti-inflammatory signaling compounds, whereas omega 6 fats are precursors to pro-inflammatory signaling compounds. The bias in fat intake leads to more pro-inflammatory signaling in the body, and a lot of alt health types have alleged this is a major causative factor in the obesity epidemic.
This is important for depression, because chronic brain inflammation as a cause of depression was one of the going hypotheses at least a decade ago when I last looked into all of this. Upping omega 3 intake is an intervention that can address chronic inflammation, which is potentially why it improves some cases of depression.
Pretty much nobody in the west needs more omega 6s these days. I hear even farmed salmon eat primarily corn and soy based feeds these days, meaning their fat ratio is skewed much more heavily toward omega 6 than wild salmon and fish.
The author simply (and terrible mistaking) typed [mg] instead of [UI] in the first paragraph: if readed entirely, the author correct this typo in every other sentence
It's my understanding that northern Europeans evolved fair skin in order to cope with the lack of vitamin D in their diet.
i understand it as: absorbing is in the intestine, generating D happens in the skin when exposed to the sun
Edit because the comment might be to shallow for HN: I sympathize with the struggle against depression and, after first-hand experience, share the skepticism against the widespread prescription of antidepressants and the methods of evidence presented for it.
Very serious and important topic.
Regarding Vitamin D, I am also supplementing in the Winter, but I have not read the article, which says it has an estimated reading time > 10min. I use one 1000IE (0.025mg according to the package) tablet a day max.
I'll bookmark this discussion page to read TFA later maybe.
Also important to take it with Vitamin K.
Seems like it would be best to increase time spent outdoors though.
> A statistical error in the estimation of the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D was recently discovered; in a correct analysis of the data used by the Institute of Medicine, it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L. Another study confirmed that 6201 IU/d was needed to achieve 75 nmol/L and 9122 IU/d was needed to reach 100 nmol/L.
> This could lead to a recommendation of 1000 IU for children <1 year on enriched formula and 1500 IU for breastfed children older than 6 months, 3000 IU for children >1 year of age, and around 8000 IU for young adults and thereafter. Actions are urgently needed to protect the global population from vitamin D deficiency.
> ...
> Since 10 000 IU/d is needed to achieve 100 nmol/L [9], except for individuals with vitamin D hypersensitivity, and since there is no evidence of adverse effects associated with serum 25(OH)D levels <140 nmol/L, leaving a considerable margin of safety for efforts to raise the population-wide concentration to around 100 nmol/L, the doses we propose could be used to reach the level of 75 nmol/L or preferably 100 nmol/L.
I'm not stating the dosage is wrong. Looks like it is anyway.
First: the RDA and the safety limit are not the same, and an RDA in a country being too low does not mean that the maximum safe dose is wrong.
And it certainly does not mean that there is a higher risk in under-dosing than overdosing when taking the RDA (which already includes recommendations for supplementing if you spend most of your time indoors).
I'm not a scientist, so I only know what physicians told me and what's explained in news publications or by consumer advocacy non-profits.
Here are a study (which I didn't read) and the NHS's advise on Vitamin D toxicity:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557876/
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-...
The study says:
> Most cases of vitamin D toxicity resolve without serious complications or sequelae. However, in some instances, severe hypercalcemia can lead to acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis. Cases of permanent renal damage due to vitamin D toxicity are rare.
Which sounds good, but I don't think it supports that there is no risk of oral Vitamin D overdose.
* Toxicity resulting from lack of monitoring is frequently seen in patients requiring high doses to treat ailments like osteoporosis, renal osteodystrophy, psoriasis, gastric bypass surgery, celiac, or inflammatory bowel disease.
* Patients who are on high doses of Vitamin D and taking inadvertently increased amounts of highly fortified milk are also at increased risk for vitamin D toxicity.
* According to the latest report from America's Poison Centers (APC), there were 11,718 cases of vitamin D exposure recorded in the National Poison Data System. More than half of these cases were in children younger than 5 years.
* The clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin D toxicity manifest from hypercalcemia's effects.
* Clinical management of vitamin D toxicity is mainly supportive and focuses on lowering calcium levels.
* Isotonic saline should be used to correct dehydration and increase renal calcium clearance.
A lot of those point to people drinking too much milk! (enriched milk)
* People with osteoporosis thinking "I better drink more milk for strong bones" when they are already on supplements/medicine.
* Kids drinking lots of milk and presumably not drinking any water - hence the dehydration.
PS: There are a lot of people out there that don't drink any water, and stick to juice or milk or soda, etc. They are not always fat, but that doesn't mean they don't have issues.
Seems to be a thing in conspiracy theories "they try to hide those simple tricks from you (drinking bleach, ivamectin, 100k D3, ...)
For D3, it is 25mcg / 1000 IU / 125%
After splitting in half it's 12.5 mcg / 500 IU / 62.5%.
I take with some fat-containing food to allow ir to absorb which is usually breakfast (yogurt, some nuts, some kind of fruit, oats), and it's a night and day difference in my mood (how easily I can control my temper if already agitated, how easily I brush off annoying stuff, takes the intensity off of my reactions and mood during conversations).
I did a blood test before starting, and if normal is between 30 - 70, I was at 10. Dr prescribed megadose of D2, followed by daily D3, but I skipped on the megadose and went straight to D3 -- makes me wonder if a megadose would build up my stores since D is fat-soluble and make it so I could miss a day and not notice.
All of the above is anecdotal from me, a self-professed cave dweller, but it's been a couple of years now, and I still notice the difference. Also, what I heard from people in Boston is that 90% of them are on a vitamin D supplement. My friend from there laughed at me when I was raving about it, saying "yeah, literally everyone here is on it".
EDIT: Wow, the HN-local doctors at it again. Imagine getting downvoted for sharing information from newspaper article (and honestly labeling that info as such), that probably was written by someone consulting medical professionals. But hey HN will know better!
Can you give the replyee some pointers, for example? Link to articles or studies that show a different view?
But also here is something to think about: your body will produce more D3 than that by being in the sun for just several minutes. So if you consider such a low dose of D3 an overdose then you better steer clear of the sun!
This is another superficial statement, that displays shallow-at-best understanding. Staying in the sun and producing via the skin, and intake via food are 2 separate pathways. You cannot just make wild assumptions about one of those pathways from stuff you know about the other pathway.
And actually: Yes, you shouldn't stay in the sun for too long without proper protection. Having the sun shine on your skin is not some inherently healthy thing. It too comes with acceptable dosage and overdose. Symptoms of overdose are commonly known as getting a sunburn.
See: Vitamin D and health: evolution, biologic functions, and recommended dietary intakes for vitamin D (293 citations)
Just a simple look at the side effects of high dosages:
Safety and side effects
Taken in typical doses, vitamin D is thought to be mainly safe.
But taking too much vitamin D in the form of supplements can be harmful and even deadly. Taking more than 4,000 IU a day of vitamin D might cause:
Upset stomach and vomiting.
Weight loss and not wanting to eat.
Muscle weakness.
Not being able to think clearly or quickly.
Heart rhythm issues.
Kidney stones and kidney damage.
1) There are lots of studies that correlate Vitamin D production with sunlight exposure. For example, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20398766/ this one lands on 1/4 of a MED = 1000 IU. Of course now we have a MED definition problem, but we're roughly talking single digit numbers for a white person in midday sun in NYC to reach 1/4 of a MED.
2) If you also supplement with Magnesium, a lot of your side effects go away. Vitamin D3 depletes Magnesium absorption.
I did have one issue related to magnesium however. If I did a very high dose of magnesium taurate and a couple of other chelated forms I would have trouble catching my breath after physical exertion similar to chronic high doses of iodine. Not the end of the world but it was unnerving.
Don't anyone else do what I do. I experiment on myself more than scientists experiment on mice minus the whole dissection bit. I am just continuing some experiments from the 1900's but as I understand it AI will be learning all of those soon. Fascinating stuff really.
> A single, optimal sun exposure session might produce the equivalent of 10,000 to 25,000 IU from a supplement, but it will not keep increasing with more time in the sun. That's your max per session.
"In Scotland, we only get enough of the right kind of sunlight for our bodies to make vitamin D between April and September, mostly between 11am and 3pm."
https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/food-and-nutrition...
Personally I found that taking Vitamin D supplements made quite a bit of difference - and I spend a fair amount of time outside (~3 hours each day).
It also sucks a lot when it's dark before starting work, dark after leaving work, and during the day rather cold to be exposing skin to the sun.
During the spring, summer, fall months I barely need it since I'm outside so much with my dog.
> Some of the available reviews, owing to the limited number of trials and methodological biases, were of low quality (Anglin et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2020; Li et al., 2014; Shaffer et al., 2014).
HN and dubious self-medication advice go hand-in-hand. Please consult a medical professional instead of a bunch of ad-tech devs.
Doing this has had a massive positive effect for me, and combined with decent nutrition and daily exercise, has been wonderful.
Can you describe what else you tried? Other supplements? Any other non-food/supplement techniques like journaling, breathing, etc.? Any therapy and other similar human interventions?
After all those - is it / was it still the case that cutting caffeine drove the best outcome?
Things like journaling / breathing / etc calm the nervous system while caffeine stimulates it. I would say caffeine is counterproductive to those practices.
I gave it maybe 2-3 months and decided it's not worth it.
Tempted to give it another shot!
I'd add that my ability to sleep naturally was negatively affected as side effect of medication. I tried a various combos to induce sleep and found the best solution to just be... exercise.
No caffeine, exercise, sleep lead to a significantly reduced anxiety and more.
All of these likely got better due to the overall effect of decreased anxiety and not making ADHD worse. I'm not myself when on caffeine. Nikola Tesla quit all caffeine/other stimulants for a reason.
Going to argue here, this is wildly bad advice. Decaf practically has no caffeine, it has 2-7 mg from what I can tell which is less then chocolate. 2-7mg is like impossible to notice and might aswell be water with how little there is.
After an absurd amount of trial and error with every over-the-counter, trendy supplement over the last couple of decades (and lord only knows how much money), these are the only ones that seem to make a subjective difference on my quality of life and an objective difference in my bloodwork.
So sunbathing is one of many way of integrating Vitamin D in our body not THE way.
Comment is neither helpful nor is it funny.
recent evidence [0] suggests there's not much of a link between serotonin and depression, and therefore the effects of SSRIs are either placebo or an as of yet unexplained mechanism of action. IMHO it seems much more likely that modern lifestyles (excessive screen time, poor diet, lack of socialization, no connection to nature, no spirituality, etc) have more of an effect than serotonin levels.
Does that mean vitamin D treats depression in general?
When most people talk of depression they aren't even using talking about major depression.
We live in a world that in many ways is comfortable but crushing. Is that depression? Or just harmful levels of understandable unhappiness? Are they different?
(As an aside, Cohen would be the person not to tell you to assign qualitative values to effect sizes. They are as arbitrary as any other threshold used by working statisticians.)
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...
EDIT – that is, please don't draw the conclusion that you can substitute supplements for antidepressants. The meta-analyses don't seem designed to examine that hypothesis, and I doubt anyone would ever participate in a such a trial. In general (and as a working biostatistician), I would be very, very, very cautious applying estimates of average effect to myself, you, or any other individual person in a field as murky as psychiatry. That's why even the stingiest American health insurance plans still have an incredibly large range of antidepressants in their formularies.
You might be depressed because you life objectively sucks. Then you symptoms are good and healthy and a signal to make changes in your circumstances.
You might actually have a good life but still feel depressed because there is a chemical imbalance in your brain. (Very simplified). That is when drugs come in.
It might be just a seasonal thing and you need to go outside more and take some supplements.
You might have some other undiagnosed issue. You might have ADHD, autism and other things that cause you to struggle and develop depression as a side effect.
So find out what works and what doesn't work for you.
For example: if your life objectively sucks, why aren't you doing anything about it? Some people whose lives suck fix their lives, and other people get depressed and do nothing; what's the difference? And: all of us know somebody who appears to have a good life and therefore their depression is presumably a chemical imbalance thing but if you're being honest the vibes in their life are a bit off, actually, like you can tell they're not really getting everything they need out of it, that they're clearly good at masking (for example people who are clearly not thriving in their relationships) .... in which case sure medication could help but you can't shake the feeling that facing the reality of their life would help a lot more.
However! Questioning this stuff becomes a bit of a moral minefield. "Believing" in the chemical imbalance theory is part of why it's medically helpful. If your life has sucked for years and you could find no way of fixing it and then SSRIs helped, then you basically need to believe that it really was a chemical imbalance, because believing that it might not be threatens to take away the thing that's making your life work. So much so that I would bet at this point there are already readers of this comment who are ready to angrily reply to my preceding paragraphs, because the model I just described threatens their existence. (If so, wait a sec and read the rest...)
On the flip side, for some people not believing in the chemical imbalance model for some particular case might be important. Maybe they want to feel responsible for their life being bad, so they will be motivated to do something about it, and being happy due to drugs would make them feel complacent and okay with years passing by at a shitty job or something. Or picture someone whose parent has gone their whole life unable to take them seriously as an adult, which as a result means the child and parent have a bad relationship, and then picture the parent complaining about depression and taking medication for it. This can be really infuriating: the child thinks about the parent, "your life sucks because of the tension created by not treating people around you with respect, and you're so incapable of recognizing this even when it's told to your face regularly that you're taking drugs to feel better despite not fixing the problem". Now ascribing depression to medical problems seems like avoidance, and having people write off your frustrations and say that you're just depressed and need to take a drug for it is frustrating.
Just saying: the two narratives really get tangled up. I don't really know what to do about it, but I do think that some harm is done by harping on the concept of a "chemical imbalance". A lot of the issue is avoided if you just think of the drugs as helpful but don't choose any model (with its moral implications) for what exactly it is they're helping with. Just treat them as a tool for making you feel better.
Also, I suspect that people who have an intuitive aversion to mental health drugs are probably way overindexing on that intuition. I definitely did this for a long time, as did some friends I knew growing up. Turns out whatever your issues you can sometimes just deal with them sooner than later if you accept that doctors might be onto something. (Actually I think the reason people get stuck avoiding medication for so long is precisely that they feel like they're not allowed to be skeptical of them... which makes them kinda plant their feet in the ground and refuse to be open to it. That's kinda why I'm typing this long comment, to tell anyone reading that it is a reasonable thing to feel. And now that you know that maybe try them anyway..?)
The problem with this that to a bad situation different people react differently - some trying to do what they can to improve the situation or at least don't make it worse and some give up and let situation to slip and become worse and worse (becoming a self fulfilling prophesy). It's not a choose one makes I think (it's likely a biological predisposition) but the difference is still exists.
People prone to depression genuinely believe the main (only) reason for a depression that the life sucks and as a result they avoid medical help and don't do anything which could help them.
For the past 15-20 years, november thru february are basically a writeoff due for me due to seasonal affective disorder. Cold showers, exercise, no alcohol, strict sleeping rituals. Vitamin d. I can still sleep 11 hours and feel like reheated cat shit.
Enter citalopram. "It will take up to six weeks to dial in" they said. Within four days I felt like the inside of my head was designed by Apple in their glory days. My mind became an orderly, well lit, tastefully designed space... instead of a dimly lit crack den. I'm more emotionally available, no longer tired, less cranky. I felt cozy. I could cry with joy because I could finally understand emotionally why people like the Christmas season.
I won the SSRI lottery I guess, the side effect are sweaty feet, vivid dreams and a dry mouth. That's all.
This just goes to show that for me, they're extremely effective.
I had a very similar experience, except it killed my libido, so I chose to endure the suffering of Winter rather than live with emotional numbness.
Still, I strongly recommend it for people flirting with the abyss. It was life-changing for me while I was raising an autistic 2yo during the pandemic.
Similar experience. Apparently pretty much ubiquitous with SSRIs
please people, take my post for what it is: anecdotal evidence. SSRIs can basically give you any possible side effect, including destroying your libido.
When I hear people say "it killed my libido" I always think about the fact that hyper-sexuality can be a trauma response, and if your body is healing the hyper-sexuality is most likely also reduced.
It's like when you have a disease and then read the side effects of a medication and notice that a lot of the side effects are basically also something that can happen when your overall condition is improving but still some people report them as adverse effects and then these are added as side effects to the package label.
For example you take antibiotics but bacteria can have toxins in their body, and when the bacteria disintegrate you get more sick from the released toxins. It's called the Herxheimer effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarisch%E2%80%93Herxheimer_rea...
When I started methyl-B12 supplementation I also had inflammation in sinuses for weeks but it was just from my immune system starting up again and being able to attack long-standing inflammation. Someone else would've put "fever", "headache" and "stuffed nose" onto the side effects medication label of methyl-B12.
IMO it's pretty clear that depression is a symptom of many independent issues, so it's really lame that we don't have a more accurate way of diagnosing it.
Thats why they are eventually tapered and discontinued once you are able to be on your own.
Getting on them can be a ball ache (or entirely painless; escitalopram was easy on and easy off, Wellbutrin was a nightmare to get on, but also easy off), but entirely worth a shot for anyone symptomatic.
I am an intermediate metabolized for the first three and the ones I was on most long. It did not suit me and made my orgasms go from ‘wtf’ to ‘that’s it?’ And they are still not normal 2 years after discontinuation.
I am still depressed and anxious to the point of serious consideration of these medicines to save myself, but you can save yourself the experimentation by doing a simple test and avoiding those medicines.
Anxiety depression panic attacks are something I wish more people studied along with sexual health.
It's like if we took sleeping pills every time we had trouble sleeping. Having said that, I just realised I have the impression that's exactly what people do in the USA?
I'm not sure if it is common but I've definitely taken my fair share of my dog's trazodone.
Yes, that's normal in the US. I have multiple family members who take Ambien (zolpidem) before bed every night.
That's not to suggest that exercise etc isn't great, just that society has come a long way in destigmatizing mental health and just being like "oh just take fish oil" to someone dealing with that kind of depression, either through shitty genes or childhood trauma or whatever, can be really harmful.
https://examine.com/supplements/magnesium/research/#nutrient
Dai (2018): Magnesium status and supplementation influence vitamin D status and metabolism: results from a randomized trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541089/ "Our findings suggest that optimal magnesium status may be important for optimizing 25(OH)D status. "
So it might well be that general deficiency in Vitamin D is caused by the deficiency in magnesium status. This would also be an explanation why we see Vitamin D deficiency in sunny Africa: https://theconversation.com/think-vitamin-d-deficiency-is-no...
I remember a similar case with levelsio who was advocating people to take melatonin and discussing how much grams is good vs bad. When I said that people shouldn't take medical device from someone who was successful in building web apps, he blocked me.
Based on the test I was just a tad under where I should be and so now I am taking 800 IU per day. I may stop in the summer when I get more sun.
I read somewhere that too much vitamin D has similar effects as too little (permanent hair loss, anemia, etc) but that may have just been on a blog similar to the linked blog on this submission.
Edit: This may also be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_psychiatry
Here's my story: I've been on duloxetine for severe depression and anxiety since September, and while that has definitely improved my mood, my energy levels are still in the gutter. I've been taking 2000 IU daily from November to March just to offset the lack of sunlight, but a few weeks ago I had bloodwork done and it turns out that dosage was keeping me just barely above the nationally recommended level of 50 nmol/L. The private lab I went to recommends keeping it >75, so I doubled my daily to 4000 IU. Since then, I've seen a steady increase in my energy level, and I've had more energy which has allowed me to maintain healthier habits -- I've been waking up earlier, getting out more, hitting the gym regularly. The difference from just a few weeks ago is night and day. It didn't magically solve all my problems, but it definitely got the flywheel turning.
Y'all called me MAHA and down voted me into the negatives. Please, insult your own analytical ability by doing the same here. This time I'll just revel in your ideologically confined science denial this time.
[0] https://scitechdaily.com/simple-three-nutrient-blend-rapidly...
Vitamin D is toxic (and ultimately fatal) at high doses, which is why the 'suggested' dosages of between 400IU and 1000IU are so conservative. You may need more, but you should get a blood test.
It is fat soluble vitamin, together with A, E and K. That in itself makes in more risky in terms of overdose. I didn't hear of any cases outside kids eating jars of vitamin gummies but it does happen.
vegancap•1h ago
Disclaimer, not saying vegans should stop being vegans, just make sure you find a good supplement, and make sure you understand the difference between EPA/DHA Omega 3.
dvh•1h ago
There's your answer
serpix•1h ago
hshdhdhj4444•1h ago
buddhistdude•28m ago
hshdhdhj4444•1h ago
Fortunately today’s vegan communities are much more aware of this so I started taking these supplements right up front and all my blood markers improved dramatically since when I consumed meat/dairy.
It’s annoying to hear some push back against this when it’s as simple as taking relatively safe supplements (just make sure you talk to a doctor, and not a social media influencer, about how much you should take, and if you get a chance to regularly check your bloodwork don’t miss out).
johnisgood•1h ago
brushfoot•1h ago
I see your disclaimer, but just for more context, vegans can get Omega 3 without taking pills per se. Flax seeds are an excellent source. I often add a spoonful to a bowl of oatmeal or as a pancake topping along with fruit sauce and granola.
pydry•1h ago
Chia seeds taste ok but you need to prep them by soaking which is a pain (or experience bloating).
All other seeds have more omega 6 than omega 3.
grvdrm•1h ago
canucker2016•1h ago
from https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga... :
from https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/must-you-grind-flax...mistercow•58m ago
Just get an algae oil based DHA+EPA supplement.