4 ms·

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

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. ;/

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. ;/