Health is better at serum 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL

Robert P. Heaney

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is clear evidence of health benefit in studies raising serum 25(OH)D in the range of 20-50 ng/mL. However, the results have not been consistent. The likely reasons include the intrinsic smallness of nutrient effects, as well as failure of trial designers to give adequate attention to starting vitamin D status and to adequacy of dose. Similarly, systematic reviews have also usually failed to use dose or starting level as criteria for study inclusion. The result is null studies, on the one hand, and, on the other, meta-analytic aggregate effects that are artifactually minimized. At a more fundamental level, the issue with vitamin D (as with most nutrients) is not the demonstration of efficacy but the defining of intake. Randomized controlled trials are poorly suited to answer such a quantitative question. Alternative approaches to defining nutrient requirements based on physiological grounds are needed (and possible). Alternatively, requirements can be based on a calculus of harm, recognizing that any selected level carries two risks: possible benefits foregone and possible harm risked. The decision should be for the nutrient status level that minimizes those inescapable risks. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Vitamin D workshop'.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)224-228
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Volume136
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Nutrients
Health
Vitamin D
Food
Serum
Calculi
Insurance Benefits
Demonstrations
Randomized Controlled Trials
Education

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Molecular Medicine
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Molecular Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Endocrinology
  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Biochemistry

Cite this

Health is better at serum 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL. / Heaney, Robert P.

In: Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2013, p. 224-228.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{0a30d89f784344f78652ba28bcb1269d,
title = "Health is better at serum 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL",
abstract = "There is clear evidence of health benefit in studies raising serum 25(OH)D in the range of 20-50 ng/mL. However, the results have not been consistent. The likely reasons include the intrinsic smallness of nutrient effects, as well as failure of trial designers to give adequate attention to starting vitamin D status and to adequacy of dose. Similarly, systematic reviews have also usually failed to use dose or starting level as criteria for study inclusion. The result is null studies, on the one hand, and, on the other, meta-analytic aggregate effects that are artifactually minimized. At a more fundamental level, the issue with vitamin D (as with most nutrients) is not the demonstration of efficacy but the defining of intake. Randomized controlled trials are poorly suited to answer such a quantitative question. Alternative approaches to defining nutrient requirements based on physiological grounds are needed (and possible). Alternatively, requirements can be based on a calculus of harm, recognizing that any selected level carries two risks: possible benefits foregone and possible harm risked. The decision should be for the nutrient status level that minimizes those inescapable risks. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Vitamin D workshop'.",
author = "Heaney, {Robert P.}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.09.032",
language = "English",
volume = "136",
pages = "224--228",
journal = "Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology",
issn = "0960-0760",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Health is better at serum 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL

AU - Heaney, Robert P.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - There is clear evidence of health benefit in studies raising serum 25(OH)D in the range of 20-50 ng/mL. However, the results have not been consistent. The likely reasons include the intrinsic smallness of nutrient effects, as well as failure of trial designers to give adequate attention to starting vitamin D status and to adequacy of dose. Similarly, systematic reviews have also usually failed to use dose or starting level as criteria for study inclusion. The result is null studies, on the one hand, and, on the other, meta-analytic aggregate effects that are artifactually minimized. At a more fundamental level, the issue with vitamin D (as with most nutrients) is not the demonstration of efficacy but the defining of intake. Randomized controlled trials are poorly suited to answer such a quantitative question. Alternative approaches to defining nutrient requirements based on physiological grounds are needed (and possible). Alternatively, requirements can be based on a calculus of harm, recognizing that any selected level carries two risks: possible benefits foregone and possible harm risked. The decision should be for the nutrient status level that minimizes those inescapable risks. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Vitamin D workshop'.

AB - There is clear evidence of health benefit in studies raising serum 25(OH)D in the range of 20-50 ng/mL. However, the results have not been consistent. The likely reasons include the intrinsic smallness of nutrient effects, as well as failure of trial designers to give adequate attention to starting vitamin D status and to adequacy of dose. Similarly, systematic reviews have also usually failed to use dose or starting level as criteria for study inclusion. The result is null studies, on the one hand, and, on the other, meta-analytic aggregate effects that are artifactually minimized. At a more fundamental level, the issue with vitamin D (as with most nutrients) is not the demonstration of efficacy but the defining of intake. Randomized controlled trials are poorly suited to answer such a quantitative question. Alternative approaches to defining nutrient requirements based on physiological grounds are needed (and possible). Alternatively, requirements can be based on a calculus of harm, recognizing that any selected level carries two risks: possible benefits foregone and possible harm risked. The decision should be for the nutrient status level that minimizes those inescapable risks. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Vitamin D workshop'.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84881184466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84881184466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.09.032

DO - 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.09.032

M3 - Review article

VL - 136

SP - 224

EP - 228

JO - Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

JF - Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

SN - 0960-0760

IS - 1

ER -