Vitamin D supplementation may lower diabetes risk for the more than 10 million adults with prediabetes

Medical Xpress / American College of Physicians / Annals of Internal Medicine ^ | Feb. 6, 2023 | Malachi J. McKenna et al

[ConservativeMind]

A review of clinical trials has found that higher vitamin D intake was associated with a 15 percent decreased likelihood for developing type 2 diabetes in adults with prediabetes.

Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin available in or added to some foods, as a supplement, or produced by the body when ultraviolet rays from sunlight strike the skin. Vitamin D has many functions in the body, including a role in insulin secretion and glucose metabolism. Observational studies have found an association between having a low level of vitamin D in the blood and high risk for developing diabetes.

Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of three clinical trials comparing vitamin D supplement impacts on diabetes risk. The authors found that over a three-year follow-up period, new-onset diabetes occurred in 22.7 percent of adults who received vitamin D and 25 percent of those who received placebo, which is a 15 percent relative reduction in risk. According to the authors, extrapolating their findings to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people.

In an accompanying editorial, authors highlight that previous data have demonstrated significant adverse effects for high vitamin D intake. They argue that professional societies promoting vitamin D therapy have an obligation to warn physicians about both required vitamin D intake and safe limits. They advise that this very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm.

[ConservativeMind]

I try to get around 3,500 IU equivalent, a day. My Vitamin D level comes in at 34 ng/ml.

That is just about the sweet spot among the studies. In general, one should shoot for 30 - 40, to not get too much and to not get too little, allowing one to maximize all-round benefits.

[ConservativeMind]

The “Take Charge Of Your Health” Ping List
This high volume ping list is for health articles and studies which describe something you or your doctor, when informed, may be able to immediately implement for your benefit.

Email me to get on either the “Common/Top Issues” (20 - 25% fewer pings) or “Everything” list.

[struggle]

If there is one thing I learned from this CoVid experience is that VIT d and ivermectin are seriously awesome

[Seaplaner]

I'm in at about twice that, 7k units/day.

The "too much" level is an open question, according to some. (Note for all who might read this, don't go by me, do your own DD and act wisely.)

[TTFX]

It seems to me many people accept the view that higher levels, 50 ng/ml or higher, are good with little evidence.

[Secret Agent Man]

on one hand its great news. i love d3/k2.

OTOH it can’t win over the typical crappy American diet. Way too much sugar in it to believe vitamin d is going to stop diabetes or other kidney damage from not occurring and winning.

you can’t just take d3/k2 and not alter your diet.

if you are overweight or obese, you’re already on the path to diabetes of one form or another.

[Signalman]

I just has a blood test and my Vit. D blood level WAS 51 ng/ml. Everything I’ve seen indicates the “sweet spot” is 50 to 80 ng/ml.

[ConservativeMind]

Show us your sources for that, if you can.

[Adder]

So once you have type 2 diabetes, it should work to help lower glucose levels?

I mean it doesn’t change how it works. But I do not see that mentioned.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/vitamin-d-diabetes-6740613

This article seems to indicate that it MAY have some benefit but its minimal.

The real answer is diet and exercise. Not a lot of shortcuts or magic pills/potions to that.

[ConservativeMind]

The abstract shows a lot of benefit to not being at 29 ng/mL or less, but they don't consider the range of 30 ng/mL to 49 ng/mL. The studies used just jump to 50 or higher ng/mL, which is getting into a range it's been claimed has more issues, but they do stress that these were on prediabetic people (high blood sugar) and not normal people, it appears.

“Three randomized trials were included, which tested cholecalciferol, 20 000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, versus matching placebos. Trials were at low risk of bias. Vitamin D reduced risk for diabetes by 15% (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.96]) in adjusted analyses, with a 3-year absolute risk reduction of 3.3% (CI, 0.6% to 6.0%). The effect of vitamin D did not differ in prespecified subgroups. Among participants assigned to the vitamin D group who maintained an intratrial mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of at least 125 nmol/L (≥50 ng/mL) compared with 50 to 74 nmol/L (20 to 29 ng/mL) during follow-up, cholecalciferol reduced risk for diabetes by 76% (hazard ratio, 0.24 [CI, 0.16 to 0.36]), with a 3-year absolute risk reduction of 18.1% (CI, 11.7% to 24.6%). Vitamin D increased the likelihood of regression to normal glucose regulation by 30% (rate ratio, 1.30 [CI, 1.16 to 1.46]). There was no evidence of difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones: 1.17 [CI, 0.69 to 1.99]; hypercalcemia: 2.34 [CI, 0.83 to 6.66]; hypercalciuria: 1.65 [CI, 0.83 to 3.28]; death: 0.85 [CI, 0.31 to 2.36]).”