Folks on reddit we’re saying this isn’t a useful study because they’re not considering the roles of vit K and magnesium.
I mean no one really expects vitamin d by itself to improve bone density. It’s but one step in the process.
Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
41–50 of 75 posts
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#42Being 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 dos…
Dialysis sucks. It takes away so many of life’s little pleasures. My best to you, brave person.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#43To 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.
Except, say, for 6-9 months every year if you're vegan and living in cold climates...
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#44Why 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…
Assessment of single specific claims has merits.
Essential vitamins are clearly important to multiple health and fitness pathways. But identifying which specific pathways, results, and mechanics has value.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#45The results confuse me. Taking 4000 or 10,000 IU results in lower bone mineral density than 400. Is lower BMD better? Otherwise it sounds like vitamin D is actually bad for you.
The reduction is very small, but the 400 group also had lower mean BMD.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#46Headline 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.
It's not too imprecise, I initially interpreted it to mean the correct thing. If anything, it's a mistake, not an attempt to clickbait.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#47Isn't that a pretty narrow age group?
"mean [SD] age, 62.2 [4.2] years"
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#48To preface here, what I'm to share goes beyond what's in the article. That said, I worked for years in a clinical "bone lab" (and at a notable university hospital with respect to this area of research) investigating bone wasting diseases; namely, idiopathic hypercalciuria, and osteopenia & osteoporosis. Not say that lends me too much authority on the matter, but many of the biological effects of D3 are pretty poorly…
Wiki on bone resorption says the opposite, not sure at what intake levels though:
>Vitamin D increases absorption of calcium and phosphate in the intestinal tract, leading to elevated levels of plasma calcium,[4] and thus lower bone resorption.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#49Earlier 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.
Plenty of people have 0 supplementation though.
Re: Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength
#50Headline 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). >…
Agreed the differences look small but find a copy of the full article (I would link but I saw a hard copy). The time curve will convince you this effect is real. All participants start at the same place and you see the dose curves move apart over time and very consistently. What definitely isn’t clear is whether vitamin D supplementation is benefiting the participants at all, thanks to their lack of a proper control.
The bone density decreases may look minor on paper but look at it this way: it’s quite possible that a very large cohort of elderly and middle aged people concerned about their bone health (potentially because they were told they have reason to be concerned) have been paying a lot of money annually to actually worsen their situation. That sucks.