Okay, I didn't think of the funding aspect, which would be a reason they were limited to that group, but again, regardless of why they were limited, the fact th

Okay, I didn't think of the funding aspect, which would be a reason they were limited to that group, but again, regardless of why they were limited, the fact that it was a limited group still casts some doubt on the broader applicability of the study. As the PI admits, they want to study men, different ethnicities as well. But then there's also that quote where the PI suggests that everyone should be taking vitamin D. But you bring up the point about there being no a priori reason for why it shouldn't be applicable to other groups. OK, I can understand the argument, but... Older, post-menopausal women have higher requirements for calcium than other groups. The amount of supplementation at 1500mg is 50% higher than RDA of calcium for men. In men, if that calcium isn't going to the bone as it presumably would be in these women, then where does it go or what effect does elevated levels of calcium have? Also, as I already stated, calcium has been found to increase prostate cancer in men. That's not obviously not going to show up in women. Hmm... I searched real quick. Besides studies showing increased risk of prostate cancer in men with higher calcium intake, it looks like there are studies that show calcium is not associated with total cancer in men, but increased intake is associated with lower total cancer women (as in this study).