
Largest Ever Clinical Study on Vitamin D Shows We're Wrong About Crucial Benefit - usaphp
https://www.sciencealert.com/largest-ever-clinical-study-on-vitamin-d-shows-we-re-wrong-about-a-crucial-benefit
======
jungler
This article comes from someone who is well-credentialed but not in the
specific topic of Vitamin D. His attribution of its current popularity is
based on a flawed hypothesis: That the current popularity surrounding it is
about fracture cases in senior homes. He focuses on correlations of fractures
to supplementation, speedily dismissing any other evidence of benefits as
cherry-picking, giving no figures about how many overdose cases he is
seeing(what cases there are must be quite rare, since I've observed that
clinicians writing about D3 have gradually bumped up their recommended upper
limits for the past decade running with no end in sight), and failing to
discuss other causal factors of his main point(e.g. D3 has been shown to be
anti-inflammatory which would lead to less pain, more mobility and increased
fall risk). I have to conclude that it's a scare piece.

I will stick with my D3 supplements, TYVM.

------
DrScump

      The results showed no association between vitamin D levels over a lifetime and the risk of fracture.
    

Actually, the paper says mostly the exact opposite: "There is _high quality
evidence_ that vitamin D plus calcium _is_ associated with a _statistically
significant reduction in incidence of new non-vertebral fractures_. "

The article focuses on the limited apparent benefits in the smaller
populations and only on hip and vertebral fractures. Well, sure, I can see how
an 80-year-old who has been D-deficient for a lifetime will not have his
brittle bones suddenly cured by D or Ca suppementation.

~~~
usaphp
Where did you find that line? Are you sure you are reading the correct paper?
[https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225](https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225)

At the end of the paper it says: _Genetic predisposition to lower vitamin D
levels and estimated calcium intake from dairy sources were not associated
with fracture risk_

~~~
masonic
The paper that the article links to is this one:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24729336](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24729336)

That quote appears in a sentence near the middle of the "MAIN RESULTS"
section.

The sentence you quoted does not disagree with this at all; it's unclear what
it has to do with the "supplemental D has no benefit" argument.

~~~
justinclift
Hmmm.

The original article this was republished from is here:

[https://theconversation.com/vitamin-d-a-pseudo-vitamin-
for-a...](https://theconversation.com/vitamin-d-a-pseudo-vitamin-for-a-pseudo-
disease-101907)

The third paragraph of that article says:

    
    
      The largest ever clinical study on the benefits of vitamin D
      in preventing fractures is now reported in the BMJ, with over
      500,000 people and around 188,000 fractures from 23 cohorts
      from many countries.
    

With a link on the "largest ever clinical study" text to:

[https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225](https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3225)

The article presently pointed at by HN (on sciencealert.com), is a re-
publishing... with the link removed.

Seems kinda dodgy. :(

HN mods - It'd probably be better to link to the original article, as the
sciencealert one looks to have specific, strategic problems. ;/

