Being a dialysis patient, I have to deal with a lot of the issues of my kidneys not functioning. There is a complex interplay of vitamin D, PTH (from parathroid), phosphorus, calcium levels and bone loss. So I have to take vitamin D, calcitriol and phosphrous binder and dietary restrictions to balance it all. Going too far one way or the other is not good. Every month I get blood tests for all these things and my doses adjusted. Vitamin D is the least of my concern in this process.
Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
31–40 of 75 posts
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#32Why are there so many studies looking at vitamin D and bone health? Vitamin D levels affect expression of over 400 genes in the human body, make a difference in cancer survival and are strongly inversely correlated with all cause mortality ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4103214/ https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/66349/depression/v... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6201256/ ). Doe…
Time to start taking vitamin D
The only supplement that the NHS recommends is taken by the bulk of healthy adults in the UK - especially during winter months.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Interventions: Daily doses of vitamin D3 for 3 years at 400 IU (n = 109), 4000 IU (n = 100), or 10 000 IU (n = 102). Calcium supplementation was provided to participants with dietary intake of less than 1200 mg per day. >Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary outcomes were total volumetric BMD at radius and tibia, assessed with high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and bone strength (failure l…
> Headline is not imprecise according to above-cited Conclusions and Relevance. No, aladoc99 is right, because the study doesn't compare against 0. So you don't know if 4000 and 10000 improve strength compared to 0, only that they don't compared to 400. It's not a hill that someone should die on, though.
Nobody has 0 intake, that is a useless control; nor would any IRB sign off on such a study, because it would be harmful to the subjects.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Headline is not imprecise according to above-cited Conclusions and Relevance. No, aladoc99 is right, because the study doesn't compare against 0. So you don't know if 4000 and 10000 improve strength compared to 0, only that they don't compared to 400. It's not a hill that someone should die on, though.
Nobody has 0 intake, that is a useless control; nor would any IRB sign off on such a study, because it would be harmful to the subjects.
If you avoid animal foods the only dietary vitamin D really is from fortified products. However we also synthesize it, albeit poorly as adults, particularly with lower exposure to the sun.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Headline is not imprecise according to above-cited Conclusions and Relevance. No, aladoc99 is right, because the study doesn't compare against 0. So you don't know if 4000 and 10000 improve strength compared to 0, only that they don't compared to 400. It's not a hill that someone should die on, though.
Nobody has 0 intake, that is a useless control; nor would any IRB sign off on such a study, because it would be harmful to the subjects.
> Nobody has 0 intake
And thus we have ourselves a quandary, but truth isn't diminished by the practical limits of safe experimentation. We don't have to lie just because.
> it would be harmful to the subjects.
That doesn't make the title precise or the observation inapt.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Headline is not imprecise according to above-cited Conclusions and Relevance. No, aladoc99 is right, because the study doesn't compare against 0. So you don't know if 4000 and 10000 improve strength compared to 0, only that they don't compared to 400. It's not a hill that someone should die on, though.
Nobody has 0 intake, that is a useless control; nor would any IRB sign off on such a study, because it would be harmful to the subjects.
The experiment itself may be useless control; most people get D vitamins from the sun. How do we know the cohorts got the same D from sun exposure?
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#37Headline is imprecise. The study is saying that higher doses of vit D do not strengthen bone more than lower doses, not that they don't strengthen bone at all, which is suggested by this headline.
As usual, the headline ought to be taken from the publication. Bone strength was virtually unchanged for every group in the study; no participant had osteoporosis. Mean BMD went down a hair for all groups, but estimated failure load was considered statistically the same:
> At trial end[...]
> mean percent change in [radial] volumetric BMD of −1.2% (400 IU group), −2.4% (4000 IU group), and −3.5% (10 000 IU group).
> mean percent change [...in tibial volumetric BMD] of −0.4% (400 IU), −1.0% (4000 IU), and −1.7% (10 000 IU).
> There were no significant differences for changes in failure load (radius, P = .06; tibia, P = .12).
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#38https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
One of my favorite articles. Vitamin D supplementation has a very poor track record of doing anything positive. It’s very likely that most of the studies attributing benefits to vitamin D and correlations between serum vitamin D and health are because it is a surrogate marker for getting sunlight, which may be the real health improver. When we supplement with D in properly controlled studies, the health benefits disappear.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#39To those who only read the HackerNews title and not the title of the actual article, it does not say that Vitamin D does not strengthen bones, but rather higher does don't seem to strengthen more than lower doses, not compared to not taking any at all as one would probably interpret from the HackerNews title.
I don't think "compared to not taking any at all" is an accurate summary here. Even if you never touch a Vitamin D supplement, many people are already getting an amount comparable to the baseline used in this study from a typical diet, or from sun exposure.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#40I thought you needed both vitamin D and vitamin K2 - D to mobilize the calcium and K2 to put it into the right place. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5613455/
In my mind that’s what makes this kind of a garbage study.