4 ms·

The findings are so weak that it is entirely possible that the basic idea that someone who takes Vitamin D is less likely to have a major heart issue migth even

The findings are so weak that it is entirely possible that the basic idea that someone who takes Vitamin D is less likely to have a major heart issue migth even be connected to the idea that people who take supplements generally have more healthy habits. You would need to control every factor of a person's life to see if D makes the difference: food, culture, stressors, exercise, etc.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago
No, the findings are weak because they are, one, assuming that all heart disease is caused by vitamin D deficiency, and two, they are not segregating the population based on genetics, and the genetic need for vitamin D. Sometimes I think they do these studies to discredit the value of nutrition and health.
- rybosworld 3y ago
  "assuming that all heart disease is caused by vitamin D deficiency" - where is this assumption being made? I think the study is valuable in that it suggests blindly giving everyone vitamin D is not strongly correlated with reduced cardiovascular events. I often see it stated that "nearly everyone" in developed countries is vitamin D deficient and so the majority of us should be supplementing. I think results like this make for a strong argument that it's more important to get your individual levels checked before you waste your money on supplements. One thing that's really important to note here is that the participants are all based in Australia. That's pretty significant considering the amount of sun Australians are exposed to. By some measures, Australia is the "sunniest" place in the world. And since exposure to sun causes your body to produce vitamin D, it's likely Australians have naturally higher levels than most other populations.
  - sgtnoodle 3y ago
    There's at least two different lab tests for vitamin D, one that measures the level in its inactive form, and one that measures the level in its active form. The inactive level is what you'll get for a routine test. The other test takes a long time to process and is more expensive, and in my experience, health insurance really doesn't like having to pay for it. The active level is ultimately what's important because it's what's interacting with your bodily functions. The tricky bit is that the relationship between the two levels is fairly inconsistent from individual to individual, and variably determined by poorly understood mechanisms. A decent subset of the population has under-diagnosed inflammatory diseases, and for whatever reason inflammatory disease tends to increase the ratio of active to inactive vitamin D. Outside of rheumatology, this dynamic isn't really known about by most doctors. There's therefore a non-zero risk of vitamin D poisoning from supplementing based purely on low test results from a primary care provider. Regulating your inactive level to the "normal" range may unknowingly increase your active level to the point that it causes problems like hypercalcemia and eventual bone damage.
ayhanfuat 3y ago
Randomized trials do not work like that.
- marifjeren 3y ago
  +1 this study was "Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled"
synetic 3y ago
You would need to control every factor of a person's life to see if D makes the difference: food, culture, stressors, exercise, etc. Since it’s not possible to do this should we give up studying these sorts of things? Scientists study theses types of things the best way they know how. They search for clues, evidence. Then more studies are done. Eventually, hopefully, enough evidence has been amassed to make a conclusion that has a very good chance of being correct. It’s not perfect but it’s much better than doing nothing. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the conclusions that can be made. They write: Vitamin D supplementation might reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events, although the absolute risk difference was small and the confidence interval was consistent with a null finding. These findings could prompt further evaluation of the role of vitamin D supplementation, particularly in people taking drugs for prevention or treatment of cardiovascular disease.
- 015a 3y ago
  > Since it’s not possible to do this should we give up studying these sorts of things? No. And no one said that. But we should outline and document the problems studies like this may have. That's how science works.
  - synetic 3y ago
    They do this in the paper. They explain what they do and their conclusions. Any similarly trained expert will understand the proper implications of the paper.
adrianmonk 3y ago
They gave vitamin D to one group and gave a placebo to the other group. I don't see how participants' likelihood of taking supplements could have any effect.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago

No, the findings are weak because they are, one, assuming that all heart disease is caused by vitamin D deficiency, and two, they are not segregating the population based on genetics, and the genetic need for vitamin D. Sometimes I think they do these studies to discredit the value of nutrition and health.

rybosworld 3y ago
"assuming that all heart disease is caused by vitamin D deficiency" - where is this assumption being made? I think the study is valuable in that it suggests blindly giving everyone vitamin D is not strongly correlated with reduced cardiovascular events. I often see it stated that "nearly everyone" in developed countries is vitamin D deficient and so the majority of us should be supplementing. I think results like this make for a strong argument that it's more important to get your individual levels checked before you waste your money on supplements. One thing that's really important to note here is that the participants are all based in Australia. That's pretty significant considering the amount of sun Australians are exposed to. By some measures, Australia is the "sunniest" place in the world. And since exposure to sun causes your body to produce vitamin D, it's likely Australians have naturally higher levels than most other populations.
- sgtnoodle 3y ago
  There's at least two different lab tests for vitamin D, one that measures the level in its inactive form, and one that measures the level in its active form. The inactive level is what you'll get for a routine test. The other test takes a long time to process and is more expensive, and in my experience, health insurance really doesn't like having to pay for it. The active level is ultimately what's important because it's what's interacting with your bodily functions. The tricky bit is that the relationship between the two levels is fairly inconsistent from individual to individual, and variably determined by poorly understood mechanisms. A decent subset of the population has under-diagnosed inflammatory diseases, and for whatever reason inflammatory disease tends to increase the ratio of active to inactive vitamin D. Outside of rheumatology, this dynamic isn't really known about by most doctors. There's therefore a non-zero risk of vitamin D poisoning from supplementing based purely on low test results from a primary care provider. Regulating your inactive level to the "normal" range may unknowingly increase your active level to the point that it causes problems like hypercalcemia and eventual bone damage.

ayhanfuat 3y ago

Randomized trials do not work like that.

marifjeren 3y ago
+1 this study was "Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled"

synetic 3y ago

You would need to control every factor of a person's life to see if D makes the difference: food, culture, stressors, exercise, etc. Since it’s not possible to do this should we give up studying these sorts of things? Scientists study theses types of things the best way they know how. They search for clues, evidence. Then more studies are done. Eventually, hopefully, enough evidence has been amassed to make a conclusion that has a very good chance of being correct. It’s not perfect but it’s much better than doing nothing. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the conclusions that can be made. They write: Vitamin D supplementation might reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events, although the absolute risk difference was small and the confidence interval was consistent with a null finding. These findings could prompt further evaluation of the role of vitamin D supplementation, particularly in people taking drugs for prevention or treatment of cardiovascular disease.

015a 3y ago
> Since it’s not possible to do this should we give up studying these sorts of things? No. And no one said that. But we should outline and document the problems studies like this may have. That's how science works.
- synetic 3y ago
  They do this in the paper. They explain what they do and their conclusions. Any similarly trained expert will understand the proper implications of the paper.

adrianmonk 3y ago

They gave vitamin D to one group and gave a placebo to the other group. I don't see how participants' likelihood of taking supplements could have any effect.