Vitamin D supplements don't help bone health, major study concludes

[helvella]

Yesterday's fact transmutes into today's non-fact!

Do note that the other possible benefits of vitamin D are subject to ongoing studies.

Vitamin D supplements don't help bone health, major study concludes

Biggest ever review of evidence recommends the government ditch its advice to take them throughout winter

Vitamin D supplements do nothing for bone health and the government should ditch its advice that everyone should take them throughout the winter months, according to the authors of the biggest review of the evidence ever carried out.

The findings challenge the established view of vitamin D and will dismay the many people who believe a daily dose of it is doing them good. But the large meta-analysis, the authors of which compiled 81 separate studies to come to the most robust possible conclusions, found there was no evidence to justify taking vitamin D supplements for bone health, except for those at high risk of a few rare conditions.

The Department of Health currently says everyone should consider taking a vitamin D supplement for their bone health in the winter months, between October and March, if they cannot get enough by exposure to sunlight. That includes all infants and children from six months to five years. It is based on findings from the government’s scientific advisory committee on nutrition (SACN) in July 2016, which did not conclude there were other proven health benefits.

The new meta-analysis is published in the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal and led by the longstanding experts on vitamin D Profs Mark Bolland and Andrew Grey from the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Prof Alison Avenell of Aberdeen University.

Bolland said things have changed since 2014, when the last major review of the evidence was carried out. In the last four years, “more than 30 randomised controlled trials on vitamin D and bone health have been published, nearly doubling the evidence base available,” he said.

“Our meta-analysis finds that vitamin D does not prevent fractures, falls or improve bone mineral density, whether at high or low dose.”

He said the advice given by doctors and government health departments around the world recommending vitamin D and saying it is helpful in osteoporosis or brittle bone disease, which afflicts older people, should now be altered. “Clinical guidelines should be changed to reflect these findings,” he said.

Rest of article here:

theguardian.com/society/201...

Abstract (and full paper, behind paywall) here:

thelancet.com/journals/land...

[grauntieannie]

My worry is that there will now be a crude response denigrating vitamin D and levels will fall dangerously.

[helvella Administrator Thyroid UK in reply to grauntieannie]

The first part of a crude response will be to make vitamin D testing less accessible.

[grauntieannie in reply to helvella]

Oh, heavens! Hadn’t thought of that!

[Marz]

I have read that in the US they are fast tracking certain vitamins through the back door of CDC and then renaming them as drugs. At that point the relevant vitamin can be removed from the market. When the US sneezes - the UK catches a cold !

Of course as we know from reading here that VitD is only a part of the bone story. I have not read anything about GP's prescribing Magnesium and K2. So perhaps without the D3 co-factors it would appear VitD is not helpful. Also members not told by Docs that it is fat soluble ...

[DellFinium in reply to Marz]

My thoughts exactly, Marz.

[SilverAvocado in reply to Marz]

But also doesn't seem to mention whether it matters if someone has a deficiency or not in the first place. Surely we'd guesss that taking Vit D makes a big difference to a person who starts with very low levels, and little difference to a person who starts with good levels.

[nightingale-56 in reply to Marz]

My GP prescribed for my son a couple of months ago, but as the only one he could prescribe was not good for diabetes I asked to carry on with the spray that I had previously given him together with co-factors. GP reluctantly agreed and is now doing another blood test, after which point I will carry on supplementing as I have always done for the past 3 years. I had to stop giving my son supplements just to let GP see that his levels just plummeted if I didn't. It hasn't really worked as he still will not write a MRS for this supplement,so that my son's carers are able to give it to him. I will now have to carry this on until such time as I can't. What will happen then I don't know!

[Marz in reply to nightingale-56]

Such a battle for you - it shouldn't be so difficult. So sad ...

[nightingale-56 in reply to Marz]

Thanks for your thoughts Marz . I do hope you are pain-free these days.

[jgelliss in reply to Marz]

There we go Again . BIG PHARMA Sees M-O-N-E-Y .It is so Very Concerning . I hope that lobbyists for vitamin companies will be strong and stand up against BIG PHARMA .Now that the flu season is coming Vitamin "D" is Great for the Flu season too .

[Treepie]

Wonder what the Vitamin D Council will report.

[mischa]

At the bottom of the Guardian article states that a Professor of molecular endocrinology at the University of Birmingham agreed but added that "supplementation of Vitamin D is only effective in those who have a deficiency but very few participants in the research started off with a deficiency". Most hypos are deficient in a number of vitamins including Vitamin D.

I have also been advised time and time again that taking Vitamin D on is own does nothing for bone health. It is with the addition of Vitamin K2 that ensures calcium is directed to bones and is not leached out into soft tissue. Correct me if I am wrong.

[BadHare in reply to mischa]

Boron is also recommended, along with D & K2, for directing calcium to our bones. That gets even less coverage. Nothing happens in isolation!

[m7-cola in reply to BadHare]

Exactly!

[jgelliss in reply to BadHare]

Great Advice . Thank You ...

[DellFinium]

Well said, mischa

[Angel_of_the_North]

Wasn't that just a meta analysis? Studying studies doesn't make the original studies any better. And vit D does far more than just bones.

[helvella Administrator Thyroid UK in reply to Angel_of_the_North]

As I view it (and it could be different for you) the very page that I have linked to has this linked at the bottom:

Vitamin D may offer protection against cancers, study says

theguardian.com/science/201...

[Angel_of_the_North in reply to helvella]

I don't see that on mine.

[annnsandell]

What about winter depression?

[lb003 in reply to annnsandell]

Yes I certainly know that my SAD has been totally cured by Vut D.

But then again I was very low in Vit D and other vits and minerals so taking it in high doses with K2, and magnesium has helped in other ways too.

My GP never mentioned my low Vit D. It was only when I requested a printout and saw my levels, that I knew anything about it!

[humanbean]

So, what is the treatment for rickets now then? Praying or visiting a wishing well?

[humanbean]

The BBC has published an article on this paper :

bbc.co.uk/news/health-45736465

One thing they mention is that in the 81 studies looked at for the meta analysis only four of the trials looked at people with a deficiency.

Researchers and scientists seem to think that meta-analysis is the greatest thing ever for getting at "the truth". But if you include research which is garbage then you get the situation of garbage in/garbage out.

In what way is a meta analysis of vitamin D supplementation any use if the vast majority of the research subjects weren't even deficient?

[diogenes Remembering]

One feels like saying this and printing it on a flag for all to see. A group response or lack of it does not provide an answer to an individual's search for health. The trap the medical profession has fallen into is to dscover (if discovery is the right word) a nett effect or lack of it in a large panel of subjects and then proclaim that this is a finding applicable to all. Again in these studies there may have been a minority of subjects deficient in Vit D whose responses were totally swamped by the majority with adequate levels. But because the majority triumphed, the minority were silenced. Big trials like this have a lot to answer for in moving the goalposts of decision-making from examining the individual to examining the mass. I've no doubt at all that giving Vit D to those who already have adequate levels has little or no benefit, but that is not rocket science.

[m7-cola in reply to diogenes]

What concerns me about this research is the assumption that ‘taking the vit D tablet’ equates with ‘absorbing’ it.