• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Vitamin D Supplementation Doesn't Protect Against Non-Bone Disease in Adults

vitamin d

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 30 December 2013 - 03:18 PM


All:


* * * *
Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review
Prof Philippe Autier MD a b Corresponding AuthorEmail Address, Prof Mathieu Boniol PhD a b, Cécile Pizot MSc a, Prof Patrick Mullie PhD a c

... We did a systematic search of prospective and intervention studies that assessed the effect of 25(OH)D concentrations on non-skeletal health outcomes in individuals aged 18 years or older....

[M]ost prospective [epidemiological] studies reported moderate to strong inverse associations between 25(OH)D concentrations and cardiovascular diseases, serum lipid concentrations, inflammation, glucose metabolism disorders, weight gain, infectious diseases, multiple sclerosis, mood disorders, declining cognitive function, impaired physical functioning, and all-cause mortality. High 25(OH)D concentrations were not associated with a lower risk of cancer, except colorectal cancer.

Results from *intervention* studies did not show an effect of vitamin D supplementation on disease occurrence, including colorectal cancer.

--> In 34 intervention studies including 2805 individuals with mean 25(OH)D concentration *lower* than 50 nmol/L at baseline supplementation with 50 μg per day [ie, [i]2000 IU] or more did not show better results[/i]. [So the standard, otherwise-reasonable complaint that studies are using and/or studying people using too low a dose (eg. 400 IU) doesn't hold water -MR].

Supplementation in elderly people (mainly women) with 20 μg vitamin D per day seemed to slightly reduce all-cause mortality.

The discrepancy between observational and intervention studies suggests that low 25(OH)D is a marker of ill health. Inflammatory processes involved in disease occurrence and clinical course would reduce 25(OH)D, which would explain why low vitamin D status is reported in a wide range of disorders. [For instance, Type II diabetes is driven in large part by inflammatory cytokines spewed out of visceral fat, and atherosclerosis both leads to and is in part driven by inflammation in the injured vessels. Such inflammation would lower 25(OH)D3 levels, which would then lead to these diseases being associated with low vit D levels in epidemiological studies -MR].

In elderly people, restoration of vitamin D deficits due to ageing and lifestyle changes induced by ill health could explain why low-dose supplementation leads to slight gains in survival.

http://dx.doi.org/10...6/S2213-8587(13)70165-7

[No PMID yet]
  • dislike x 1

#2 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 December 2013 - 04:54 PM

Thanks. I have long argued that almost all vitamin D observational studies can be explained by vitamin D status being a surrogate marker for other aspects of health and behavior, so one should not expect wonders from supplementation.
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 30 December 2013 - 07:44 PM

Thanks. I have long argued that almost all vitamin D observational studies can be explained by vitamin D status being a surrogate marker for other aspects of health and behavior, so one should not expect wonders from supplementation.


This could be said for all hormones in the body.

My main focus is exercise and a good diet, but I still supplement the hormone D3 and would consider other hormones in the future. Sure, you could think of it as masking over aspects of ill-health and a deteriorating aging body, but if it helps just a bit, it is better than nothing.

#4 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 219
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 30 December 2013 - 09:17 PM

Note that this is a meta-analysis that tries to lump together results of a number of studies, hoping that increasing the N will make all the other differences and/or defects in methods between the lumped studies less significant. Which is kind of a problem when it comes to assessing the effect of Vitamin D3 if it glosses over important details like whether any co-supplements may or may not have also been involved. The abstract quoted above doesn't specify whether D3 was being studied in controlled isolation or randomly mixed with other supplements, neither of which would be a very intelligent supplementation strategy.

Also don't see any control for participants that might have tried boosting Vitamin D levels with sun exposure. Which might impact cancer incidence and longevity. Which is an odd omission considering they've written so many papers on that very subject.

Its interesting that they retract the inference (from their own previous meta-analysis) that Vitamin D3 supplementation might correlate to increased colorectal cancer rates. By now attempting to distinguish observational and intervention D3 meta-analysis.

There have been studies suggesting that D3 should be taken in combination with K2 and Magnesium to avoid calcium related cardiovascular issues. And that taking D3 in combination with some forms of Vitamin A may exacerbate Vitamin A issues with regard to cancer. Don't see any indication in the abstract that any of those possible issues were controlled or accounted for in their intervention meta-analysis. But I haven't gotten access to read the entire paper.

Howard
  • like x 1

#5 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 02 January 2014 - 09:39 PM

I read an article (think it was several weeks ago), which I think was basically just rehashing the above study ... wondered why more wasn't made of it here. I do wonder about the latter part -- the elderly who did show reduced mortality w/D, was it mostly just an improvement with women, or did you mean that the studies were mostly on elderly women?

The logical conclusion probably would be due to less hip breaks, and such. Just wondering if they measured their elderly D levels, and if we could conclude what number constitutes a true deficiency and when supplementation may show some benefits, even if minor ones.

I believe there are some studies finishing up in 2017-20 which should shine some more light on if D supplementation helps or not. But in the meantime, it seems like with every report I've been lowering my D supplementation more and more. I have been aiming for a serum of around 32 ... now thinking even that may not be necessary.

#6 LucidMind

  • Guest
  • 49 posts
  • 12
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 03 January 2014 - 08:53 AM

There have been studies suggesting that D3 should be taken in combination with K2 and Magnesium to avoid calcium related cardiovascular issues.

Howard


It is imperative to take Vitamin K with Vitamin D3 to achieve the full benefits of D3 supplementation.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:59 PM

How does this relate to the epidemiological evidence, particularly in relation to the latitude people live at? Is there some benefit to converting cholesterol in your skin via sunlight, over and above the benefit of gaining D3?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: vitamin d

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users