4 ms·
From what I understand, the paper did a survey of Vitamin D related statistical studies. Then, went ahead and said that there existed a reverse causal link (Dep
by eshvk 12y ago
From what I understand, the paper did a survey of Vitamin D related statistical studies. Then, went ahead and said that there existed a reverse causal link (Depression -> Stay Inside -> Low Vitamin D) as to why certain correlations existed. I am not going to make any judgements as to the causal conclusions they make. However, can you please clarify where you got the "negative outcomes"? There is no such thing mentioned in the NYT article, neither in the abstract of the Lancet paper.
- spikels 12y agoThe negative outcomes are not in those short summaries but the are easy to find. However just as a few positve studies don't prove Vitamin D is good for you a few negative studies don't prove it is bad. However negative studies do add to balance of evidence against use. There is also the risk of overdose in any widely used supplement. Thankfully few of the 60,000 cases of vitamin toxicity in the US annually are Vitamin D (Iron is the riskyist). A short walk in the sunlight is the best source of Vitamin D because your body naturally regulates it's production to near the optimum amount! I often wonder if the extreme avoidance of sunlight by some people is actually unhealthy... Cancer: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/GeneralPrimaryCare/32369 http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/GeneralPrimaryCare/3... Heart Disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21505219 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21505219 http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111117/Vitamin-D-and-its-good-and-bad-effects-on-the-heart.aspx http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111117/Vitamin-D-and-its-...