This post is a followup to a previous post on Vitamin D. After reading through the paper, I wanted to make a few points. First off, I don't support the "Marshall protocol". It deals with taking antibiotics and eliminating Vitamin D for a while. I don't think it seems very plausible in my opinion.
The paper does have some good discussion points. The first is that low Vitamin D levels may be a result of a disease condition, not a cause. This strikes me as possible because I think it's the same thing with cholesterol levels. I have always thought high cholesterol levels were a result of the metabolic syndrome, not the cause. Artificially lowering LDL levels via statins does not seem to attack the main problem, and therefore there is no large effect on mortality. With Vitamin D, low serum levels could be both the result of the metabolic syndrome, and also predispose a person to further deterioration.
The second question has to do with whether Vitamin D levels should be kept high year-round. Certainly in Paleolithic times, there had to be a drop in Vitamin D levels during the winter. If this was the natural cycle for millions of years, then couldn't disturbing it create problems?
I asked the Vitamin D Council about this issue. They said to keep the levels high and stable throughout the year. They pointed me to this paper which analyzes the issue. However, I am not fully convinced. The paper was more theoretical, and looked at things at a cellular level. I would like to see a study done on humans.
My next question is: does getting Vitamin D from supplements closely mimic getting it from the sun? In other words, do you miss out on any benefits by taking supplements instead of spending time in sunlight? I haven't found any answers on this yet.
My last question is: has anyone ever measured the Vitamin D levels of modern hunter-gatherers? This would be interesting to know. This might provide some type of reference for a natural serum level of Vitamin D.
