Media Says Vit.D Doesn't Improve Bone Health

[whit]

What does the RP community have to say about this one?
"Our meta-analysis finds that vitamin D does not prevent fractures, falls or improve bone mineral density, whether at high or low dose," lead author Dr. Mark J. Bolland, associate professor at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, said in a statement."
Vitamin D supplements don't improve bone health, study finds

 

[Douglas Ek]

What does the RP community have to say about this one?
"Our meta-analysis finds that vitamin D does not prevent fractures, falls or improve bone mineral density, whether at high or low dose," lead author Dr. Mark J. Bolland, associate professor at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, said in a statement."
Vitamin D supplements don't improve bone health, study finds

It does with the right nutrients, magnesium, vitamin K2, calcium, vitamin A and many more. Probably doesn’t help much with adults who have adequate levels either or like i said low levels of these other nutrients it can probably even be bad. It’s a steroid not a vitamin and theres a need for homestasis. Overdosing on it probably does nothing or might even harm you. Getting blood test on vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and PTH is a good idea before you start supplementing ***t lofs of it. If you live in a sunny country you probably do not need it.

 

[whit]

I'm generally wary of meta analysis studies. The issue is it seems they can be biased however one chooses.

Taking too much D might be as dangerous or more than as having too little.

 

[tankasnowgod]

What does the RP community have to say about this one?
"Our meta-analysis finds that vitamin D does not prevent fractures, falls or improve bone mineral density, whether at high or low dose," lead author Dr. Mark J. Bolland, associate professor at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, said in a statement."
Vitamin D supplements don't improve bone health, study finds

Well, as soon as I see a link to a "news source," I usually dismiss it. I tend to think most journalists are idiots in general, and when it comes to anything health related, it's pretty clear they don't have a clue. I wouldn't doubt if you find the Press Release put out by Mark Bolland and NZ Bone Health Research Review, and compare it to the story, they would match up pretty well. Write an effective press release, and control the entire story.

If I were curious, I would investigate what conflicts of interest Mark Bolland might have, or who the NZ Bone Health Research Review is funded by. Might tell you something.

As for me, this news story about a meta-analysis doesn't change my views of Vitamin D one iota, nor does it change my views of the cofactors.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Here is the actual study-

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...3-8587(18)30265-1/fulltext#articleInformation

This is from the summary- "Results were similar in randomised controlled trials of high-dose versus low-dose vitamin D and in subgroup analyses of randomised controlled trials using doses greater than 800 IU per day."

If 800 IU is what they consider a "high dose," that is incredibly telling. Even the RDA for Vitamin D now sits at 1000 IU. A physiological dose is usually considered at 10,000 IU and can be as high as 25,000 IU.

 

[whit]

Thanks tankasnowgod
I figured there was more to the story.
If this is what they call news what else are they feeding the public wholesale.
You did in 10 minutes what a paid "reporter" didn't bother to analyze before putting to print.
Kudos to you my horsefaced friend.

 

[DaveFoster]

journalists are idiots in general

You're far too kind. At least in the U.S., the majority of non-independent journalists, those who work for legacy media outlets, themselves coincidentally owned by a small clique, not only lack a spine and readily adopt the ideology of their masters, but they mirror "academic authoritarians" as disingenuous manipulators of language, ideas and people.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

You're far too kind. At least in the U.S., the majority of non-independent journalists, those who work for legacy media outlets, themselves coincidentally owned by a small clique, not only lack a spine and readily adopt the ideology of their masters, but they mirror "academic authoritarians" as disingenuous manipulators of language, ideas and people.

That is very well put.

 

[DaveFoster]

That is very well put.

Thank you.

 

[whit]

Well said Dave Foster
The level of media outlets discrediting themselves with "reporting" in this manner is quite staggering.