How much D3 is too much?

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

Re: How much D3 is too much?

Postby jimmylegs » Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:43 am

here's what the study you/mercola refer to actually says:

The effect of vitamin D supplementation on skeletal, vascular, or cancer outcomes: a trial sequential meta-analysis
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landi ... 2/abstract
Background
Vitamin D insufficiency is associated with many disorders, leading to calls for widespread supplementation. Some investigators suggest that more clinical trials to test the effect of vitamin D on disorders are needed.
Methods
We did a trial sequential meta-analysis of existing randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplements, with or without calcium, to investigate the possible effect of future trials on current knowledge. We estimated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, stroke or cerebrovascular disease, cancer, total fracture, hip fracture, and mortality in trial sequential analyses using a risk reduction threshold of 5% for mortality and 15% for other endpoints.
Findings
The effect estimate for vitamin D supplementation with or without calcium for myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease (nine trials, 48 647 patients), stroke or cerebrovascular disease (eight trials 46 431 patients), cancer (seven trials, 48 167 patients), and total fracture (22 trials, 76 497 patients) lay within the futility boundary, indicating that vitamin D supplementation does not alter the relative risk of any of these endpoints by 15% or more. Vitamin D supplementation alone did not reduce hip fracture by 15% or more (12 trials, 27 834 patients). Vitamin D co-administered with calcium reduced hip fracture in institutionalised individuals (two trials, 3853 patients) but did not alter the relative risk of hip fracture by 15% or more in community-dwelling individuals (seven trials, 46 237 patients). There is uncertainty as to whether vitamin D with or without calcium reduces the risk of death (38 trials, 81 173).
Interpretation
Our findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation with or without calcium does not reduce skeletal or non-skeletal outcomes in unselected community-dwelling individuals by more than 15%. Future trials with similar designs are unlikely to alter these conclusions.


the risk reduction thresholds do look sketchy, but the researchers' basic question was: should we continue to look at the effect of vit d3 or vit d3+Ca on these conditions.
the conclusion: not with the study designs we've been using so far.

so not at these doses, and not in these formulations and combinations. i'll certainly agree with that - it's time to start looking beyond vit d3 and calcium alone. (as in Trautvetter et al 2014 above - "Effect of calcium phosphate and vitamin D3 supplementation on bone remodelling and metabolism of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium and iron")

so re
Guess you can make a study show whatever you want.
it would seem so. but I don't think dr. mercola's inflammatory hyperbolic approach ("New Analysis Claims Vitamin D Supplements Are Useless") really does much good.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8985
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service