I was somewhat wary - given the sample being only 34 and there being a subject choice about whether or not to take vitamin D. And nothing in the abstract that identifies whether it was vitamin D2 or D3. Nevertheless, food for thought.
Why on earth do these so called researchers think that a test using 34 people is adequate? It seems to be more and more the norm these days, no doubt due to "budget cuts"!
It's just getting the funding is hard. obviously they know bigger would be preferable, but breaking new ground means other studies may be done to see if these results can be replicated. Often it takes many, many studies to bring about a change in advice.
It's clearly not a UK study, so budget cuts, if existing, are elsewhere.
It would depend on what your D levels currently are. But if you live in the UK there is a high chance that you are deficient, because we are in a far north latitude, like Canada, and get no sun strong enough to make D in the skin for six months of the winter.
It is posisible to get D from fish and outdoor bred meat, but you'd need to be eating an awful lot... say, fish twice a day.
If you look at the Vit D council website you will find a lot of research based information.
Personally I take at least 2,000 iu vit D daily in winter, and many take 5,000. But it would be good to check yr level, there are online available tests I believe ... the nhs sadly can't afford to check in a preventative way.
Thank you for that. I live in the US -Colorado at 6,500' elevation. You would think that we would get more vitamin D here but they have found that most are deficient in it. Very puzzling. I currently take 5000 units a day which is what is prescribed here
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.