I'm glad this was posted, although I do find the article to be a little confused. Certainly, what the writer is getting at has been the Achilles heel of the wh

I'm glad this was posted, although I do find the article to be a little confused. Certainly, what the writer is getting at has been the Achilles heel of the whole take-your-vitamins movement: just because some chemical is good to have in your body, does not mean that taking that chemical in pill form is a helpful thing. While she does not mention it, this idea seems to be particularly applicable to vitamin C. It is certainly an important part of general health. However, if I understand the research correctly, beyond the small amount necessary to prevent scurvy, studies have shown no benefits at all to taking vitamin C supplements (corrections are welcome!). So: the first few paragraphs suggest that, while high vitamin D levels seem to correlate with good health, that does not mean that supplements help. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. That is all fine. However, she then goes on to cite studies, all of which were concerned not with vitamin D levels in the body, but with supplementation. Furthermore, she rather strangely says that the Women's Health Initiative study "found no overall benefit", and yet also found that vitamin D + calcium supplementation correlated with reduced incidence of hip fracture. How is that not a benefit? In any case, I welcome the direction that research seems to be going. Whenever there is an easy way to improve the health of large numbers of people, it is a good idea to find it.