3 ms·

Largest Ever Clinical Study on Vitamin D Shows We're Wrong About Crucial Benefit

10 points by usaphp 8y ago

DrScump 8y ago
The results showed no association between vitamin D levels over a lifetime and the risk of fracture. Actually, the paper says mostly the exact opposite: "There is high quality evidence that vitamin D plus calcium is associated with a statistically significant reduction in incidence of new non-vertebral fractures. " The article focuses on the limited apparent benefits in the smaller populations and only on hip and vertebral fractures. Well, sure, I can see how an 80-year-old who has been D-deficient for a lifetime will not have his brittle bones suddenly cured by D or Ca suppementation.
- usaphp 8y ago
  Where did you find that line? Are you sure you are reading the correct paper? https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 At the end of the paper it says: Genetic predisposition to lower vitamin D levels and estimated calcium intake from dairy sources were not associated with fracture risk
  - masonic 8y ago
    The paper that the article links to is this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24729336 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24729336 That quote appears in a sentence near the middle of the "MAIN RESULTS" section. The sentence you quoted does not disagree with this at all; it's unclear what it has to do with the "supplemental D has no benefit" argument.
    - justinclift 8y ago
      Hmmm. The original article this was republished from is here: https://theconversation.com/vitamin-d-a-pseudo-vitamin-for-a-pseudo-disease-101907 https://theconversation.com/vitamin-d-a-pseudo-vitamin-for-a... The third paragraph of that article says: The largest ever clinical study on the benefits of vitamin D in preventing fractures is now reported in the BMJ, with over 500,000 people and around 188,000 fractures from 23 cohorts from many countries. With a link on the "largest ever clinical study" text to: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 The article presently pointed at by HN (on sciencealert.com), is a re-publishing... with the link removed. Seems kinda dodgy. :( HN mods - It'd probably be better to link to the original article, as the sciencealert one looks to have specific, strategic problems. ;/
jungler 8y ago
This article comes from someone who is well-credentialed but not in the specific topic of Vitamin D. His attribution of its current popularity is based on a flawed hypothesis: That the current popularity surrounding it is about fracture cases in senior homes. He focuses on correlations of fractures to supplementation, speedily dismissing any other evidence of benefits as cherry-picking, giving no figures about how many overdose cases he is seeing(what cases there are must be quite rare, since I've observed that clinicians writing about D3 have gradually bumped up their recommended upper limits for the past decade running with no end in sight), and failing to discuss other causal factors of his main point(e.g. D3 has been shown to be anti-inflammatory which would lead to less pain, more mobility and increased fall risk). I have to conclude that it's a scare piece. I will stick with my D3 supplements, TYVM.

10 points by usaphp 8y ago

The results showed no association between vitamin D levels over a lifetime and the risk of fracture. Actually, the paper says mostly the exact opposite: "There is high quality evidence that vitamin D plus calcium is associated with a statistically significant reduction in incidence of new non-vertebral fractures. " The article focuses on the limited apparent benefits in the smaller populations and only on hip and vertebral fractures. Well, sure, I can see how an 80-year-old who has been D-deficient for a lifetime will not have his brittle bones suddenly cured by D or Ca suppementation.

usaphp 8y ago
Where did you find that line? Are you sure you are reading the correct paper? https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 At the end of the paper it says: Genetic predisposition to lower vitamin D levels and estimated calcium intake from dairy sources were not associated with fracture risk
- masonic 8y ago
  The paper that the article links to is this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24729336 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24729336 That quote appears in a sentence near the middle of the "MAIN RESULTS" section. The sentence you quoted does not disagree with this at all; it's unclear what it has to do with the "supplemental D has no benefit" argument.
  - justinclift 8y ago
    Hmmm. The original article this was republished from is here: https://theconversation.com/vitamin-d-a-pseudo-vitamin-for-a-pseudo-disease-101907 https://theconversation.com/vitamin-d-a-pseudo-vitamin-for-a... The third paragraph of that article says: The largest ever clinical study on the benefits of vitamin D in preventing fractures is now reported in the BMJ, with over 500,000 people and around 188,000 fractures from 23 cohorts from many countries. With a link on the "largest ever clinical study" text to: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225 The article presently pointed at by HN (on sciencealert.com), is a re-publishing... with the link removed. Seems kinda dodgy. :( HN mods - It'd probably be better to link to the original article, as the sciencealert one looks to have specific, strategic problems. ;/

jungler 8y ago

This article comes from someone who is well-credentialed but not in the specific topic of Vitamin D. His attribution of its current popularity is based on a flawed hypothesis: That the current popularity surrounding it is about fracture cases in senior homes. He focuses on correlations of fractures to supplementation, speedily dismissing any other evidence of benefits as cherry-picking, giving no figures about how many overdose cases he is seeing(what cases there are must be quite rare, since I've observed that clinicians writing about D3 have gradually bumped up their recommended upper limits for the past decade running with no end in sight), and failing to discuss other causal factors of his main point(e.g. D3 has been shown to be anti-inflammatory which would lead to less pain, more mobility and increased fall risk). I have to conclude that it's a scare piece. I will stick with my D3 supplements, TYVM.