NPS guidelines now only recommend testing of at risk individuals

http://www.nps.org.au/health-professionals/health-news-evidence/2014/vitamin-d-cause-effect

The supplement companies may not like this.

(I like it when the research agrees with me! But I know poik ain’t keen on meta-analysis)

buffy said:

The supplement companies may not like this.

Never stopped them before.

Vitaimn D is a bit fad like IMO, meta analysis has its place.

>>Vitaimn D is a bit fad like IMO<<

I said that a good two years ago…we never bothered to test for it 10 and more years ago unless there were signs of ricketts. Then all of a sudden everyone was Vitamin D deficient. As I said here (or maybe on the old SSSF) if you test a bunch of young healthy females and more than 50% are “deficient” you have your “normal” at the wrong place on the curve.

buffy said:

>>Vitaimn D is a bit fad like IMO<<

I said that a good two years ago…we never bothered to test for it 10 and more years ago unless there were signs of ricketts. Then all of a sudden everyone was Vitamin D deficient. As I said here (or maybe on the old SSSF) if you test a bunch of young healthy females and more than 50% are “deficient” you have your “normal” at the wrong place on the curve.

How do you know they are not normal if there was no curve before hand?

e.g. based on disease rates or similar.

normal, healthy, ¿same thing?

Now that average is overweight, of course!