
The Miracle of Vitamin D: Sound Science, or Hype? - robg
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/the-miracle-of-vitamin-d-sound-science-or-hype/?8dpc
======
ggchappell
I'm glad this was posted, although I do find the article to be a little
confused.

Certainly, what the writer is getting at has been the Achilles heel of the
whole take-your-vitamins movement: just because some chemical is good to have
in your body, does not mean that taking that chemical in pill form is a
helpful thing. While she does not mention it, this idea seems to be
particularly applicable to vitamin C. It is certainly an important part of
general health. However, if I understand the research correctly, beyond the
small amount necessary to prevent scurvy, studies have shown no benefits at
all to taking vitamin C supplements (corrections are welcome!).

So: the first few paragraphs suggest that, while high vitamin D levels seem to
correlate with good health, that does not mean that supplements help.
Correlation does not equal causation, etc.

That is all fine. However, she then goes on to cite studies, _all_ of which
were concerned not with vitamin D levels in the body, but with
supplementation.

Furthermore, she rather strangely says that the Women's Health Initiative
study "found no overall benefit", and yet also found that vitamin D + calcium
supplementation correlated with reduced incidence of hip fracture. How is that
not a benefit?

In any case, I welcome the direction that research seems to be going. Whenever
there is an easy way to improve the health of large numbers of people, it is a
good idea to find it.

------
MikeCapone
According to what I've read, it's not too surprising that some of these
studies found no effect: a 400 UI daily dose is too small to make a
difference, especially if not taken in a gelcap (vit D is fat soluble).

