advertisement


Ditch those Vit. D pills.

A study showing an annual increase from one to two cases of whatever would never be published in a good journal. The sample size is way too small to conclude anything.

Joe
I didn't realise the Independent was a "good journal."
 
I thought the same until I had some blood tests as part of a medical exam a few years ago. As for making nice profits, I reckon I can spare 1-2p a day.
If it’s on medical advice taken on the basis of test results, intervention seems reasonable. Saying that, medical opinion changes all the time; eg not long ago eggs were thought to be a high contributing factor to elevated cholesterol levels, now it’s carbohydrates.
 
Man,

The results would be from another source, with the Independent reporting on it. Just saying a study with such a small sample size wouldn’t make the cut in a proper journal.

Joe
 
I wonder if generally low D levels correlates to increased awareness of melanoma and the use of sunscreens?
 
I thought the same until I had some blood tests as part of a medical exam a few years ago. As for making nice profits, I reckon I can spare 1-2p a day.


I was also referred for a blood test after seeing my GP about some symptoms I was experiencing, about a year before Covid lockdown.
The test revealed a significant depletion of Vid D (for my age) most likely due to the limited time I spent outside since retiring.

I was prescribed a course of Vit D supplement, and the symptoms gradually disappeared.
I was convinced, and have been taking regular 1000 UI daily during the Winter months.
... and also getting out more ;)
 
Man,

The results would be from another source, with the Independent reporting on it. Just saying a study with such a small sample size wouldn’t make the cut in a proper journal.

Joe

Indeed - the Independent article is based on NHS admission data covering hundreds of thousands of admissions ..... so more than 2 ;)
 
If it’s on medical advice taken on the basis of test results, intervention seems reasonable. Saying that, medical opinion changes all the time; eg not long ago eggs were thought to be a high contributing factor to elevated cholesterol levels, now it’s carbohydrates.
Medical opinion really doesn't "change all the time ", it evolves. There's a significant difference.
 
Medical opinion really doesn't "change all the time ", it evolves. There's a significant difference.

I think part of the problem is the way things are reported.
Studies are taking place all the time on aspects of nutrition and inevitably some may challenge previous studies or received wisdom (it's what they're for). Some will also get published via related journals, no matter how small and inconclusive they may be, but particularly if they raise issues requiring further study. Again, this how research works and often why it gets funded.

Only takes a few media sources to seize on them and pronounce that 'all previous thinking was garbage...'

The Times article referred to by the OP being a case in point - clearly misrepresenting the study it claims to be based on.
 
You’re splitting hairs, there is no substantive difference there.
Absolutely - I was once told by a consultant that NICE guidelines had changed - and they had too!
I don’t see any argument that shows any difference in this thread, just a rather condescending comment (or two).
 
Sorry I should have made it clearer, I was posting an excerpt from an article, I did so as it's behind a paywall. I take Vit D pills daily, but what the article seems to suggest - I think so anyway - is that even if supplements bring one's Vit. D level up to normal, then that alone may have little or no effect upon the progress of a range of diseases, some of which like weak bones are closely associated with Vit. D, and other's such as cancer where a more general association exists.
My understanding, largely from a thread on here a while back, is that (as mentioned upthread) vit D pills are most effective if taken in conjunction with vit K2, which aids the take up of dietary calcium and thus mitigates the weak bones issue somewhat. This is, AIUI, fairly standard advice nowadays. Does your study mention that?
 
Supplement's don't make much of difference to people with healthy levels of Vit D but they do make a difference to those with significant deficits. K2 certainly helps absorption. Sprays are more effective than pills.
 
OH was told to take Ca / D3 tabs after a blood test, her Dad was a GP up North and saw loads of osteoporosis.

My blood test was fine, mainly as most of the time i'm outside; so i've got cataracts instead!
 
The boss was diagnosed with very low levels of Vit D so she started taking it
I joined in after hearing John Campbell on YouTube and also many reports in New Scientist saying how is sorted a great deal of problems.
Wondered if lack of Vit D caused my dental problems, dentist said not
 
There is D vitamins which you can buy and eat as much you want and there is D vitamins which you can get only with prescription. Probably they all not the same.
 
Supplements may bring Vit D levels back up to normal, but study suggests that alone is insufficient to stop progression of disease directly or loosely associated with low levels of Vit D. It would appear the body needs to produce it naturally - either from sunlight or food, popping a pill - the study suggests - is a shortcut to nowhere.

Yes but you could say that of any vitamin. Vitamins are important but not one-stop miracle cures.

Some people unfortunately struggle with absorption rates for a variety of reasons: age, skin colour, weight are some, so they need supplements. They do improve Vit D levels.
 
surely just eat a balanced diet unless something has been diagnosed and assessed, which is probably too late in any case, just get on with life, enjoy
 


advertisement


Back
Top