Doubt cast on vitamin D's role against disease

[xchrom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25234313


Vitamin D supplements are recommended for young children and the elderly

Scientists have cast doubt on the value of vitamin D supplements to protect against diseases such as cancers, diabetes and dementia.

Writing in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, French researchers suggest low vitamin D levels do not cause ill health, although they did not look at bone diseases.

More clinical trials on non-skeletal diseases are needed, they say.

Vitamin D supplements are recommended for certain groups.

[lostincalifornia]

1. "low vitamin D levels do not cause ill health" is not a true statement, and their admission of not

looking at bone disease really makes this shoe assertion questionable.

Hyperparathyroidism. Osteoporosis, and Ricketts are the most obviously consequences of Vitamin D deficiency

However, Vitamin D deficiency is associated with various diseases, such as bone loss, osteoarthritis, cognitive issues, kidney disease, respiratory concerns, diabetes, gastrointestinal issues, cardiovascular disease, etc.

The number involved in the prospective study is also quite small

Where is a solid double blind study?

[xchrom]

2. Vitamin D Shows No Benefit Against Cancer, Heart Disease

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-05/vitamin-d-shows-no-benefit-in-fighting-cancer-heart-disease.html

Vitamin D supplements don’t help prevent chronic diseases unrelated to the bones, according to a review of published research that challenges the prevailing wisdom held by proponents.

While scientific evidence supports the importance of vitamin D for bone health, its benefits in reducing the risk of diseases ranging from cancer to heart disease as shown in 290 observational studies were largely unconfirmed in 172 randomized controlled trials, experiments considered the gold standard for establishing causal links, according to the review published today in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology medical journal.

The discrepancy in findings between the two types of studies suggests that low levels of vitamin D aren’t a cause but a consequence of ill health, particularly inflammation linked to many diseases, according to the review’s lead author, Philippe Autier, a professor at the International Prevention Research Institute in Lyon, France. The research has implications for almost half of all U.S. adults, who are paying $600 million a year for vitamin D pills.

“Associations between vitamin D and health disorders reported by investigators of observational studies are not causal,” Autier said in the published paper. “Low vitamin D could be the result of inflammatory processes involved in the occurrence and progression of disease.”

[snappyturtle]

3. Agreed. This article is at best a word salad. We have to remember

who benefits from treating the symptoms of nutritional deficiencies.

[djean111]

4. My thought exactly.

[hedgehog]

5. Since the benefits of vitamin D are dose related, studies including

with the long accepted lower recommended dose will show no beneficial effect.

[mopinko]

6. ^^this^^

true, i swear.

[HuckleB]

7. Can you support your claim with a true scientific consensus of large, long-term studies?

If not...

[hedgehog]

8. I haven't the time to collect them right now,

but I've been following the research for about 6 or 7 years now. I first came across the interest in Vitamin D when researching SAD. Then I found an article associating Vitamin D levels with all depression. Then Vitamin D and glucose control, Vitamin D and autoimmune disease, Vitamin D and resistance to influenza...By this time Vitamin D is sounding like quackery - except that all these hits were from respected research journals. Vitamin D is in fact a hormone, so it makes sense that it would effect multiple systems in the body.

To give some notion of what I am talking about - The long accepted RDA for Vitamin D was 400 IU - based on the amount needed to prevent gross bone deformation from rickets. Today my serum levels for Vitamin D are in the now accepted range, and I take 4000 IU a day - 10 times the old RDA!

With regards to research into the effectiveness of any supplement, I think the results should be correlated in terms of actual blood serum levels rather than dosage. (At the very least, given the low level of government oversight supplements, the pills used should be tested to ensure they contain what the researchers thin they contain!) All too often I see a report that says X doesn't do anything for Y, and when you read the actual report, you discover that the researcher either gave what the advocates consider an ineffective dose and/or the subjects have difficulty absorbing the supplement.

So, in this particular case, if the claim is that 4000 IU are needed to have any benefit, studies using 400 IU should not be included.

[HuckleB]

9. The old RDA has been long ignored by almost everyone, so...

you really have to be specific when you're talking about "high doses."

[RagAss]

11. I agree. Check my post below....it's all about blood levels.

[RagAss]

10. I don't pay much attention to Vitamin D "studies"....

and I make no claims about Vitamin D3 other than my own experience. I started taking 10,000 iu of vitamin D3 per day three years ago, after reading the online published works and peer review studies of Dr. John Cannell. I went from being a virtual arthritic zombie at the age of 52 to a physically active 55 year old who no longer needs 20 minutes to get out of bed every morning. My 25 OHD level is holding steady at 71 ng/ml and I test once a year. I started at 18ng/ml three years ago. Until I read about a study geared toward acheiving levels between 60 and 80 ng/ml in the subjects, I won't waste my time reading results.

peace....
rags