Aug 22, 2022 04:33 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/wellne...vitamin-d/
EXCERPT: . . . As potential links between vitamin D and one health condition after another broke, the link between vitamin D and bone health still seemed certain. Now, data from the vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial published July 28 in The New England Journal of Medicine knocks down even that last bit of nutritional “certainty” — participants randomly assigned to take 2,000 IU (international units) of vitamin D3 per day were no less likely to suffer a bone fracture than those taking a placebo pill.
An accompanying editorial recommended that providers stop testing vitamin D levels or recommending taking vitamin D supplements in the general population, and that “people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life.”
Kestenbaum agrees, noting that the authors of the editorial are excellent vitamin D researchers. “Every study of this type is showing that there’s no benefit of taking vitamin D,” he said, adding that it this was true regardless of whether participants had already been taking vitamin D supplements before the study started. It also didn’t matter if their blood levels of vitamin D started out on lower or higher. “I think it’s proven.”
VITAL researchers previously found that vitamin D did not reduce the risk of developing cancer, having a heart attack or stroke, dying from cardiovascular disease, suffering a fall or experiencing depression. It also did not affect body fat. The vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes randomized controlled trial found that after 2.5 years, taking 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily was no better than a placebo at preventing diabetes in high-risk adults.
Ott agrees there’s no reason for most people to be tested. However, she does think that in Seattle we may still need some supplemental vitamin D, but only in the 400-1,000 IU range. Our skin makes vitamin D when it’s exposed to sunlight, which those of us in northern climates get less of. “If you happen to have a bunch of 2,000 IU supplements, take them every few days,” she said... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - -
Classic example of how flamingly prone to flip-flopping certain areas of the biomedical sciences are, in conjunction with the unreliability of the social sciences. Whether you like or dislike something, just wait and it'll change. At least one of them still suggests "normal levels" of D supplementation for contingent situations, which is the limit of what should be taken to begin with, when they were in or oscillate back (yet again someday) to another advocacy interval.
EXCERPT: . . . As potential links between vitamin D and one health condition after another broke, the link between vitamin D and bone health still seemed certain. Now, data from the vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial published July 28 in The New England Journal of Medicine knocks down even that last bit of nutritional “certainty” — participants randomly assigned to take 2,000 IU (international units) of vitamin D3 per day were no less likely to suffer a bone fracture than those taking a placebo pill.
An accompanying editorial recommended that providers stop testing vitamin D levels or recommending taking vitamin D supplements in the general population, and that “people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life.”
Kestenbaum agrees, noting that the authors of the editorial are excellent vitamin D researchers. “Every study of this type is showing that there’s no benefit of taking vitamin D,” he said, adding that it this was true regardless of whether participants had already been taking vitamin D supplements before the study started. It also didn’t matter if their blood levels of vitamin D started out on lower or higher. “I think it’s proven.”
VITAL researchers previously found that vitamin D did not reduce the risk of developing cancer, having a heart attack or stroke, dying from cardiovascular disease, suffering a fall or experiencing depression. It also did not affect body fat. The vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes randomized controlled trial found that after 2.5 years, taking 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily was no better than a placebo at preventing diabetes in high-risk adults.
Ott agrees there’s no reason for most people to be tested. However, she does think that in Seattle we may still need some supplemental vitamin D, but only in the 400-1,000 IU range. Our skin makes vitamin D when it’s exposed to sunlight, which those of us in northern climates get less of. “If you happen to have a bunch of 2,000 IU supplements, take them every few days,” she said... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - -
Classic example of how flamingly prone to flip-flopping certain areas of the biomedical sciences are, in conjunction with the unreliability of the social sciences. Whether you like or dislike something, just wait and it'll change. At least one of them still suggests "normal levels" of D supplementation for contingent situations, which is the limit of what should be taken to begin with, when they were in or oscillate back (yet again someday) to another advocacy interval.