OT: D3 + fish oil may reduce autoimmune risk

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
21

From the linked article

Conclusions
Among healthy adults, treatment with vitamin D for 3 years at a dose of 4000 IU per day or 10?000 IU per day, compared with 400 IU per day, resulted in statistically significant lower radial BMD; tibial BMD was significantly lower only with the daily dose of 10?000 IU. There were no significant differences in bone strength at either the radius or tibia. These findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health; further research would be needed to determine whether it is harmful.

As you know all research papers only establish facts without surmising outcomes. The researchers write these papers to allow for further hypotheses and research in the future.

The above conclusion was proven well prior by other researchers.

My BIL has run a lab in Boston for over two decades. He has also been a clinician. The clinicians separately have seen the results of higher doses of vit D in a greater incidence of broken bones. I am talking over 4000 IU depending on the person.

Several months go was some chatter on NPR news about more medical journals denying access or going to for pay models. I did not pay much attention. I scantly know that journals have changed their policies regarding open access. So googling MIGHT be of less use to us.

Just because I said that does not mean I need another link. Give a rest.

22

Which of you two will let it go and give the other one the last word?

There is never need to dictate how anyone else posts on this board. I certainly wont put up with be dictated to.

I have however thought over the problems involved with this and made follow up posts. The information is not readily available these days.

Sometimes you just have to take someone’s word for something or simply say not for me and move on. Even saying “I cant see that as happening” is far less obnoxious than demanding things and demanding how others post.

23

OK kids….
Can we put a stop to the bickering please?

This is an investment board. Please take the drama over to FB.

Thanks,
‘38Packard

3 Likes
24

Please take the drama over to FB.

'38

I’d need to dress casually for that.

25

Iam and 38 et al,

I have her on ignore. This wont happen again.

I did turn on the penalty box.

She can create her arguments here without me.

26

You are misquoting me…

You are right and I apologize for being lazy and not going back to your post. Instead of what I typed, "Simply saying “Everyone knows…” I should have copied and pasted from your post: It is very well known that vit D in quantities over 4000 IU can lead to broken bones. Post Number: 641389 Not sure that there is much difference between “everyone knows” and “it is very well known,” but indeed it was not a direct quote and again, lazy on my part.

Thank you for the link to the actual study. From what I am reading, they conclude that while radial bone density is statistically reduced more in the 4,000 IU and 10,000 IU level of supplementation when compared to the 400 IU level, only at 10,000 IU is there a statistical difference in the tibial bone density. Even with those differences in bone density, there was no significant differences in bone strength. It is concluded that higher levels of vitamin D supplementation are not beneficial to bone health, but it is also stated that more research needs to be done to see if the supplementation at higher levels is harmful. It does not support your theory IMO that “vit D in quantities over 4000 IU can lead to broken bones.” The study itself states this: There was no effect on fall rates in this study and no evidence of a relationship between changes in volumetric BMD and fracture risk…

Here is the direct copy and paste from the study: Conclusions and Relevance Among healthy adults, treatment with vitamin D for 3 years at a dose of 4000 IU per day or 10?000 IU per day, compared with 400 IU per day, resulted in statistically significant lower radial BMD; tibial BMD was significantly lower only with the 10?000 IU per day dose. There were no significant differences in bone strength at either the radius or tibia. These findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health; further research would be needed to determine whether it is harmful.

I also found this interesting: “Clinical trial data support skeletal benefits of vitamin D supplementation in persons with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels of less than 30 nmol/L.” But then it is stated that the very people with low vitamin D levels in their blood that should be helped by supplementation are eliminated from the study: “1 Participants were excluded if their screening serum 25(OH)D was less than 30 nmol/L or greater than 125 nmol/L;” So they tested the use of supplementation on those who did not need it? In the data it shows that the baseline D levels were 76.3, 81.3, and 78.4 respectively for the 400IU, 4,000IU and 10,000IU groups. Those levels are not indicative of needing D supplementation at all. So why should it surprise us that giving large doses of supplemental vitamin D to those who didn’t need it in the first place, would not be helpful?

nmol/L*	ng/mL*	Health status
<30	<12	Associated with vitamin D deficiency, which can lead to rickets in infants and children and osteomalacia in adults
30 to <50	12 to <20	Generally considered inadequate for bone and overall health in healthy individuals
=50	=20	Generally considered adequate for bone and overall health in healthy individuals
>125	>50	Linked to potential adverse effects, particularly at >150 nmol/L (>60 ng/mL)

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona…%2Fday%20%5B11%5D).

I could go deeper into this, but given it is the wrong board I will simply note that any nutrition study that does not control the food intake, rather estimating what is being consumed by “assessed by a food frequency questionnaire,” is subject to large error. I am also surprised that there was no control group of 0 IU Vitamin D, while still receiving the Calcium supplements that were given when dietary calcium was deemed too low via the food frequency questionnaire. The lack of a vitamin K2 supplement in conjunction with the Ca supplement is probably some of the cause of the hypercalcemia they experienced during the study. Add to that the fact that they had quality problems with the high dose drops, (and why was the dose by drop rather than a capsule, when we are talking 2000IU PER DROP for the higher dose group, it’s not hard to overdose!!!)

To their credit, at the end of the study they too admit to the above under the section called Limitations. Here again is the link to the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2748796#:~…

I am not saying these studies are easy to read, but almost always if you wade through them you will reach a different conclusion than the pablum the general press puts out.

FWIW,

IP,
hoping after all this it is remembered that Vitamin D is also beneficial for your immune system and thought to help protect against cancer

3 Likes
27

https://www.businessinsider.com/vitamin-d-does-not-prevent-b…

snippet:

While recommendations for supplements are usually with modest doses (10 micrograms or 400 international units(IU)), these will inevitably be overdone by some people taking other sources in cod liver oil tablets or in fortified milk, orange juice or bread. More worrying, people increasingly buy high-dose supplements of 4,000-20,000 IU on the internet.

Patients with very high vitamin D blood levels (over 100nmol) are becoming routine in my clinic and elsewhere, and toxic overdoses are increasingly being reported. Several randomized trials have shown that patients with high blood levels or taking large doses of vitamin D (above 800IU) had an unexpected increased risk of falls and fractures. Vitamin D is far from safe.


What happens in the clinical setting is the entire picture. If many people taking vit D won't stick to 1000 or 2000 IU as it is commonly packaged, then what's the point of a study on 2000 or 4000 IU?

Supplementing with under 2000 IU vit D is very important for many people. The clinicians have generally been aware of this for a very long while now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The snippet above includes a hot link on fractures.

[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20460620/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20460620/)

This study dated 2010 was done with an annual dose of 500,000 IU. That works out to roughly 1200 IU per day. While I said over two decades(I am thinking of how long my BIL has been in the family), this was becoming more apparent around 2010 or a few years earlier when my mother broken her foot in two places. I am wrong about how far this goes back as clinical knowledge. Doctors suggesting supplementing as a standard practice have only done so as far back as 12 to 15 years ago.

Snippet:

Results: Women in the cholecalciferol (vitamin D) group had 171 fractures vs 135 in the placebo group; 837 women in the vitamin D group fell 2892 times (rate, 83.4 per 100 person-years) while 769 women in the placebo group fell 2512 times (rate, 72.7 per 100 person-years; incidence rate ratio [RR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.30; P = .03). The incidence RR for fracture in the vitamin D group was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.00-1.59; P = .047) vs the placebo group (rates per 100 person-years, 4.9 vitamin D vs 3.9 placebo). A temporal pattern was observed in a post hoc analysis of falls. The incidence RR of falling in the vitamin D group vs the placebo group was 1.31 in the first 3 months after dosing and 1.13 during the following 9 months (test for homogeneity; P = .02). In the substudy, the median baseline serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol was 49 nmol/L. Less than 3% of the substudy participants had 25-hydroxycholecalciferol levels lower than 25 nmol/L. In the vitamin D group, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol levels increased at 1 month after dosing to approximately 120 nmol/L, were approximately 90 nmol/L at 3 months, and remained higher than the placebo group 12 months after dosing.

Conclusion: Among older community-dwelling women, annual oral administration of high-dose cholecalciferol resulted in an increased risk of falls and fractures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would have to directly ask my BIL if doctors are even continuing to see this as a standard practice to suggest vit D. In family scuttlebutt that was nebulous for older women some four years ago.
28

Which of you two will let it go and give the other one the last word?

Pops, I get that it is onerous to continue reading the spittle that comes off these posts. It is onerous replying to it. However, the claim he has made, that supplementation with vitamin D, a vitamin that has been shown to be important in a healthy immune system and fending off cancer, results in higher rate of bone fracture. Even the study he finally provided as evidence does not state that. He has misunderstood and he is trumpeting the erroneous conclusions for all to hear as gospel truth. How many people will avoid taking a beneficial supplement because of that?

If the Emperor is wearing no clothes, I won’t praise what he pretends to be wearing. That goes against the peer review nature of these boards that keeps them from being complete BS.

IP

2 Likes