No health shield from vitamin D pills: study

January 24, 2014 (AFP) – Vitamin D supplements have no significant effect on preventing heart attack, stroke, cancer or bone fractures, according to a review of scientific evidence published Friday.

Researchers led by Mark Bolland of the University of Auckland in New Zealand looked at 40 high-quality trials to see if supplements met a benchmark of reducing risk of these problems by 15 percent or more.

Previous research had seen a strong link between vitamin D deficiency and poor health in these areas.

But the new study, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, strengthens arguments that vitamin D deficiency is usually the result of ill health — not the cause of it.

Its authors say there is “little justification” for doctors to prescribe vitamin D supplements as a preventive measure for these disorders.

“Available evidence does not lend support to vitamin D supplementation and it is very unlikely that the results of a future single randomised clinical trial will materially alter the results from current meta-analyses,” they write.

Vitamin D is a key component for healthy bones, teeth and muscles.

It is produced naturally when the skin is exposed to sunlight or derived from foods such as oily fish, egg yolks and cheese.

In March last year, British scientists, in a comparison of 4,000 women, found that vitamin D supplements taken in pregnancy made no difference to the child’s bone health.

And in September 2012, researchers at New York’s Rockefeller University saw no evidence that vitamin D supplements lowered cholesterol, a factor in heart disease, at least over the short term.

In contrast, a November 2012 investigation into pregnant women who lived in high-latitude, northern hemisphere countries with long, dark winters found a link between low levels of natural vitamin D and an increased risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) in their offspring.

For these women, taking vitamin D supplements to offset the effects of long periods without sunlight could be advisable, according to that research.

costa rica news

ATTENTION: If you are seeing this message,


Subscribe via E-Mail

Get all of our news delivered fresh to your inbox every morning! Just tell us your name and where to send it using the form below.

PS – We hate spam too. We don’t sell or share our list with anyone, and we never send commercial email.

* = required field


Like us on Facebook and receive our news in your timeline

  • dennis3

    The problem with studies like this is that either the study by design is flawed and therefore the result from said study is likewise flawed or the clinician does not understand the real workings of the subject matter.

    The design flaw is common because they have to isolate just one single aspect and study it, in this case vitamin D, against the effect on or result of “future disorders”.

    If the clinician understands the complexities of these disorders, he would have to include other factors like (in this study) magnesium, calcium, potassium, vitamin K2 as examples (there are more to it than these) since they ALL work together and lacking ANY ONE of them and your get poor results on preventing “future disorders”. This being the case, the clinician has to first understand ALL these factors and then to take these factors into account when they compare results. The clinician has to choose subjects that matches ALL other aspects except vitamin D for the study to be meaningful.

    And this we did not even scratch the surface of the causes of these “future disorders” OTHER THAN Vitamin D and account for them too. Nor did the clinician state just what these “future disorders” he was referring to. Once graduated doctors often forget all about physiology and biochemistry.

    This is not just a waste of time, this is giving wrong information to the uninformed public.