The story urges readers to be cautious about consuming vitamin D supplements — particularly in high doses, which can increase a variety of health risks. The story stems from a recent commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which expressed skepticism about the wisdom of prescribing high doses of vitamin D and pointed to the lack of evidence that high doses of vitamin D were associated with health benefits.
We’re admittedly fans of any story that casts a skeptical eye on interventions that aren’t supported by solid evidence, and our (mainly positive) review reflects that slant. But we do offer some suggestions for how this story could have upped its game. A second expert perspective, or some cost information, would have added a fifth star to this story’s score.
Vitamin D use has increased significantly over the past 15 years; Consumer Reports reported that sales of vitamin D supplements rose from $40 million in 2001 to $425 million in 2009. While some articles, including the recent one in JAMA, have tied this increase to guidance from doctors, news outlets may also have a role. A 2014 study published in BMJ Open examined 294 newspaper articles and found that the articles not only “generally supported” the use of vitamin D supplements, but also “linked vitamin D to a wide range of health conditions for which there is no conclusive scientific evidence….and overlooked any potential risks.” Given that vitamin D is a big (and growing) business, with a range of possible health effects for those who take excessive amounts, it’s a subject worth tracking for doctors, consumers, and any reporters who write about the subject.
The story does not discuss the price of vitamin D supplements (a quick online search indicates that supplements can range in price from less than $4 to more than $80 for 180 capsules). The story also says that the recommended dietary allowance of vitamin D can be met by eating “three or four servings each day of ‘fortified’ foods such as milk, yogurt, soy beverages, orange juice or cereal, plus fatty fish twice a week.” Probably not an issue for most readers, but those aren’t necessarily low-cost foods for people on a budget — and some of those foods may be unavailable to people who live in “food deserts.”
The story talks about vitamin D-rich foods and supplements (including high-dose supplements). Are there benefits? Yes, and the story addresses (some of) them. The story makes clear that vitamin D is an essential nutrient for bone health, and that if you cannot get enough vitamin D from your diet (or from exposure to sunlight), then supplements can help you reach your target vitamin D consumption goal — which is 600 international units (IUs) per day for men and women between the ages of 1 and 70. The story could also have mentioned that vitamin D is involved in a variety of other health functions, including “modulation of cell growth, neuromuscular and immune function, and reduction of inflammation,” according to the CDC.
Another strong point of the story is explaining that many of the purported health benefits of high-dose vitamin D supplementation — for example, prevention of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer — have not been based on strong scientific evidence.
The story tells readers that taking large doses of supplements (above 4,000 IUs) can increase your risk of kidney stones, calcification of blood vessels and cardiovascular disease. Vitamin D toxicity is rare, but given the current enthusiasm for supplementation, it’s good for stories to voice some caution.
The story was prompted by a perspective piece by Dr. Manson, a leading expert in vitamin D and health outcomes. The main topic of the commentary is the lack of evidence supporting high-dose vitamin D supplementation. The story conveys that message first by stating that “physicians are prescribing large doses of Vitamin D…in the hope of preventing cancer…and other maladies, despite a lack of evidence that this works.” To back this up, the story relies on a quote that “there’s been a disconnect between the observational studies and the randomized clinical trials to date.” This is all correct, but admittedly a bit vague and potentially confusing for readers. How is an observational study different from a randomized trial, and which one provides stronger evidence? Which studies have fallen short of showing positive health effects? Which health effects were those studies evaluating? Is this an area that may be affected by the bias against publishing negative results?
A bit more detail and explanation would have been welcome here. But since the overall message of the story is consistent with the evidence on this topic — i.e. the story clearly “grasps the quality of the evidence” — we’re inclined to rule this satisfactory.
No disease mongering here. The story clearly says that vitamin D supplements make sense if you’re not getting enough vitamin D in your diet, and also notes that taking high doses of vitamin D increases the risk of adverse health outcomes.
The story cites only two sources: Dr. Manson and the JAMA commentary co-authored by Manson. While Dr. Manson would normally qualify as an independent expert source in any story on vitamin D, here she’s basically being asked to comment on an article that she wrote which is the basis for the story. The story would have been much stronger if it had also included input from someone who didn’t author the JAMA commentary.
The story lays out what constitutes a healthy amount of vitamin D, how people can get that amount of vitamin D through their diet (or sunlight), and that some supplements may be needed.
The story doesn’t go into this, but it doesn’t really need to. Vitamin D supplements are available online and have long been available in many grocery, drug, and health stores. We’ll rate it not applicable.
The story provides the background on why this issue is worth writing about now. It notes that over the past 15 years, observational studies “have been reported by the media as suggesting that vitamin D has these benefits” (i.e. cancer and cardiovascular disease prevention). It explains that these studies have promoted a “more is better” approach that isn’t supported by the evidence. It notes that there’s a large clinical study of vitamin D underway that should help answer many of the questions surrounding vitamin D.
The story does not appear to draw from a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Judith Ronat M. D.
March 2, 2015 at 10:31 amPeople expose themselves less to sunshine for fear of melanomas. And doctors measuring the blood level of Vitamin D has become common. So when the level is low, doctors prescribe Vitamin D to be taken by mouth. I have not found research reports, but it seems that Vitamin D is absorbed better if taken in oil based liquid rather than pills. If the doctor has prescribed pills, and the blood level doesn’t rise, he may prescribe more and more, until “mega doses” are reached.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like