Friday, January 28, 2011

Vitamin D Review

The Institute of Medicine generated a lot of controversy 2 months ago with its recent recommendations for vitamin D.  Specifically, they were quite conservative in their recommendations but mainly because all the studies that demonstrate a link w/many chronic disease processes are observational in nature. 

In fact, there are very few, if any, randomized double blind placebo controlled trials demonstrating benefit.  The New England Journal of Medicine published a nice review of the data this past week that's easier to peruse than the IOM's monstrositySo did the Mayo Clinic in their Proceedings this month

My take is that given the strong (observation & epidemiological) associations with chronic disease, the relative lack of side effects when levels are monitored closely, along with the minimal expense, perhaps the benefit:risk ratio is in favor of optimizing one's vitamin D.  Because there is concern about skin cancer from too much sun exposure (which also increases vitamin D), we normally suggest supplementing w/vitamin D3 (a study published in December 2010 demonstrated vitamin D3 had better efficacy than vitamin D2).  Of course, when it's a sunny day at Heavenly Ski Resort . . .

No comments:

Post a Comment