Two recent clinical trials indicate that the popular belief that vitamin D supplementation protects against fractures and extends life expectancy, rooted in the biochemical mechanisms in which vitamin D is involved, has not been clinically proven.
The nutritional supplement market is trying to meet the need of our time: people want to take care of their health, even if they are healthy. They want to maximize well-being, minimize disease risk, and sometimes free themselves from medical power, many reasons why nutritional supplements are an attractive tech solution. Indeed, medical knowledge is always there: it is generally uttered only for a specific group of patients (the problem of external validity ofwhich multicenter trials are trying to solve) and specific end points (a mark, a , etc.). There is no silver bullet for the new health goals of a portion of the population.
These considerations are rarely burdened with the nutritional supplement market. Mechanistic inference, based on biochemical knowledge of our organism or isolated clinical trials, which lack statistical power, is sufficient for this. En effet, grâce à cela, les vendeurs de compléments peuvent attester d’une pseudo-efficacité en utilisant un langage scientifique complexe ou bien en suggérant que l’efficacité est cliniquement démontré’e parm des êmes sé efficais robust In most cases. Since then, we find ourselves in a cacophony, with products to be proud offor you To silence your digestive disorders or to make you . It’s a bit like Who have been praised for their advantages on immunity, fractures, mortality, etc. Two Clinical Trials Come Live These are common beliefs.
Strong Clinical Trials
These two attempts took a long time: five years for the first and five years and three months for the second.
he is double-blind against and attempts to assess the effect of taking 60,000 IU of vitamin D per month on mortality in Australians over the age of 60, which have not been screened for in vitamin D. As a result, vitamin D intake had no significant effect on of deaths.
It is a randomized controlled trial (with randomization). Triple-blind versus placebo. The main trial (VITAL) aims to determine the effect of taking On the one hand, and vitamin D on the other subordinate And the . The additional trial discussed focused on self-reported fracture risk as an outcome. In more than 25,000 patients in the United States who were not screened for vitamin D deficiency, fracture risk was not reduced by taking vitamin D.
What do we conclude from this?
Vitamin D intake does not appear to have any effect on mortality or the risk of fractures in people over 60 years of age.from the deficiency. Hence caution is advised when taking dietary supplements devoid of some benefit, because the risks can sometimes be poorly assessed, as suggested by . Obviously, these trials say nothing about the effectiveness of vitamin D in other indications and other types of patients.