[dead]
Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
21–30 of 53 posts
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#22Is this actually real? I don't see any link to a study. The use of AI has me suspect, as does visiting the main page of the site and seeing: "A 365º view of your heart health" I guess that could be intentional but it comes off as someone mistaking days in a year with degrees in a circle.
The 365º view of your heart health was supposed to be a joke. Although not necessarily a good one. :)
The study was presented at the AHA scientific sessions; full manuscript isn't out yet. It's in the caveats section in the article.
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it change practice substantially? I thought that typically vitamin D levels are measured at least annually and treated if low.
I would be very surprised if most people get vitamin d levels measured annually.
At least for the past few years it has been part of my annual physical. I had no idea it was part of the blood test until it came out as being low.
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#24Isn't it a possibility that our lifestyles have changed in ways that have reduced the amount of Vitamin D we have historically received? Are we incidentally measuring the sum result of our social choices?
Probably yet I don't see much direct connection. People were not having less heart attacks or heart attacks later in life. I suppose testing a vitamin D theory to significance may not have been easy before ~1980 because of many other causes of heart attack having higher frequency.
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#25The headline is poorly worded. The 52% number was for people with Vitamin D levels within a certain range, whether or not they took supplements
EDIT: The study was also performed exclusively on patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome. Average age was over 60, nearly 80% were men, and half had already had at least one heart attack. Keep that context in mind when reading numbers about the patients in the study. This is a heavily biased sample, which is fine for the purposes of the study but important to remember.
> Participants in the experiment arm who stayed within 40-80 ng/mL of vitamin D had a 52% lower risk of a repeat heart attack.
The study did use supplements to get people into that range if necessary, but the important thing is to keep your Vitamin D in that range, not specifically to just take supplements.
There’s a lot of claims online that everyone’s Vitamin D is too low and we should all be taking very high dose supplements, but it’s getting exaggerated. My doctor said she’s seeing a huge number of patients coming back with excessively high Vitamin D levels after taking supplement doses recommended by influencers. It happened to me, too, with what I though was a conservative dose of Vitamin D (5K IU, not even taken every day)
So you really have to check. Even though I work indoors and wear sunscreen a lot, apparently my diet and limited sun exposure alone are sufficient for staying in this range. Others will have different results. Don’t guess!
Also remember that Vitamin D levels change slowly. Supplementation can build up and accumulate in the body over time if you’re taking too much. You want to stabilize on a dose and then check in 3-6 months. Some people get a low Vitamin D result and start taking high doses every day, then a year or two later they’re into hypervitaminosis D and have no way to clear it other than waiting for it to be processed out.
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#26This was a write-up of a new study (TARGET-D) that used vitamin D supplements -- with the supplement amount guided by blood testing -- to reduce heart attack risk. I've been working in heart health in 10 years and I was surprised at the magnitude of the effect here. I hope it holds up as they move toward the final publication. Vitamin D supplementation is cheap and this could have a huge benefit.
Would it change practice substantially? I thought that typically vitamin D levels are measured at least annually and treated if low.
I'm nearly 70, and I have never had my vitamin D levels tested. (This is in the US).
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it change practice substantially? I thought that typically vitamin D levels are measured at least annually and treated if low.
I would be very surprised if most people get vitamin d levels measured annually.
I’ve had 5 different primary care doctors across multiple practices in different locations due to moving, changing jobs, and doctors retiring
Every single one of them included Vitamin D testing in the annual checkup.
Two of my jobs in the past few years have had wellness programs that offered free Vitamin D testing along with a couple other things (A1c, lipids)
It’s very common in the United States at least. I know this goes against the “US healthcare bad” narrative but one of the difficulties with our costs is that we get more testing and procedures. Cutting those costs is going to be hard because people like the freedom to have their doctor order common tests
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#28This is interesting to me because I was put on prescription 50000IU D2 and it gave me heart palpitations.
I was put on 5000IU D2 and I got kidney stones, twice. The doctor wouldn't believe that the D2 was the cause, but I stopped taking it and the stones have not recurred.
I would like to bring my D levels up, but not at the expense of kidney stones.
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be very surprised if most people get vitamin d levels measured annually.
I would be very surprised if anyone got vitamin d levels measured who didn't specifically request it.
All of my doctors (due to moves, retirements, etc) have done this for years in the US.
When the topic came up recently at a get together everyone could recall their relative Vitamin D levels (too low, normal) from recent checkups.
It’s common, at least in the US areas where I’ve lived.
Re: Vitamin D supplements cut heart attack risk by 52%. Why?
#30This is interesting to me because I was put on prescription 50000IU D2 and it gave me heart palpitations.
50K IU in a single dose is probably a bad idea. You’d also want D3 generally.