Jump to content

Vitamin D and recent research indicates profound outcomes


Recommended Posts

Recent? The meta-analysis you point to [1] is from 2014. Recent randomized control trials of vitamin D supplements haven't found significant benefits in subjects who weren't deficient in vitamin D to start with [2].

--Dean 

-----

[1] Schöttker B, Jorde R, Peasey A, Thorand B, Jansen EH, Groot Ld, Streppel M, Gardiner J, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Perna L, Wilsgaard T, Rathmann W, Feskens E, Kampman E, Siganos G, Njølstad I, Mathiesen EB, Kubínová R, Pająk A, Topor-Madry R, Tamosiunas A, Hughes M, Kee F, Bobak M, Trichopoulou A, Boffetta P, Brenner H; Consortium on Health and Ageing: Network of Cohorts in Europe and the United States. Vitamin D and mortality: meta-analysis of individual participant data from a large consortium of cohort studies from Europe and the United States. BMJ. 2014 Jun 17;348:g3656. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3656. PMID: 24938302; PMCID: PMC4061380. 

 

[2] 1. Nutrients. 2022 Jan 12;14(2):303. doi: 10.3390/nu14020303.

Critical Appraisal of Large Vitamin D Randomized Controlled Trials.

Pilz S(1), Trummer C(1), Theiler-Schwetz V(1), Grübler MR(1), Verheyen ND(2), 

Odler B(3), Karras SN(4), Zittermann A(5), März W(6)(7)(8).

 

As a consequence of epidemiological studies showing significant associations of 

vitamin D deficiency with a variety of adverse extra-skeletal clinical outcomes 

including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and mortality, large vitamin D 

randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed and conducted over the 

last few years. The vast majority of these trials did not restrict their study 

populations to individuals with vitamin D deficiency, and some even allowed 

moderate vitamin D supplementation in the placebo groups. In these RCTs, there 

were no significant effects on the primary outcomes, including cancer, 

cardiovascular events, and mortality, but explorative outcome analyses and 

meta-analyses revealed indications for potential benefits such as reductions in 

cancer mortality or acute respiratory infections. Importantly, data from RCTs 

with relatively high doses of vitamin D supplementation did, by the vast 

majority, not show significant safety issues, except for trials in critically or 

severely ill patients or in those using very high intermittent vitamin D doses. 

The recent large vitamin D RCTs did not challenge the beneficial effects of 

vitamin D regarding rickets and osteomalacia, that therefore continue to provide 

the scientific basis for nutritional vitamin D guidelines and recommendations. 

There remains a great need to evaluate the effects of vitamin D treatment in 

populations with vitamin D deficiency or certain characteristics suggesting a 

high sensitivity to treatment. Outcomes and limitations of recently published 

large vitamin D RCTs must inform the design of future vitamin D or nutrition 

trials that should use more personalized approaches.

 

DOI: 10.3390/nu14020303

PMCID: PMC8778517

PMID: 35057483 [Indexed for MEDLINE]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

but explorative outcome analyses and 

meta-analyses revealed indications for potential benefits such as reductions in 

cancer mortality or acute respiratory infections. Importantly, data from RCTs 

with relatively high doses of vitamin D supplementation did, by the vast 

majority, not show significant safety issues, except for trials in critically or 

severely ill patients or in those using very high intermittent vitamin D doses. 

The recent large vitamin D RCTs did not challenge the beneficial effects of 

vitamin D regarding rickets and osteomalacia, that therefore continue to provide 

the scientific basis for nutritional vitamin D guidelines and recommendations

  --  Saul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've reported this a while ago: my levels of vitamin D3, measured after a summer of daily exposure to natural UV rays (sunrays at hours around noon), was 32 ng/ml (I hope the units are right). The body did not produce more, even if it plausibly had the possibility. At first I was disappointed. But afterwards, I reasoned, perhaps that indicates that higher concentrations were not optimal for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mccoy said:

At first I was disappointed. But afterwards, I reasoned, perhaps that indicates that higher concentrations were not optimal for me?

Quite reasonable, I think.  The same is true for carrots and vitamin A.   Is it possible to get an overdose of vitamin A from eating carrots?

If you do want to overdose, use supplements.  Hypervitaminosis A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mccoy said:

I've reported this a while ago: my levels of vitamin D3, measured after a summer of daily exposure to natural UV rays (sunrays at hours around noon), was 32 ng/ml (I hope the units are right). The body did not produce more, even if it plausibly had the possibility. At first I was disappointed. But afterwards, I reasoned, perhaps that indicates that higher concentrations were not optimal for me?

Interesting I had the same experience several years ago and my levels were in the same range as yours. But where I live it’s not possible 6 months out of the year and so I supplement 1000 mg from late October until March. A test in February showed I maintained the summer levels doing that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...