The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated
The author argues that while randomized trials show limited causal evidence for Vitamin D supplements, the biological role of Vitamin D as a signaling molecule suggests it remains beneficial for those with low levels. The piece challenges the prevailing skeptical view that Vitamin D supplementation is largely ineffective.
Why it matters
It highlights the ongoing debate in medical science regarding the interpretation of clinical trials versus biological mechanisms in nutritional health.
For a while there, many people thought vitamin D was magical—that it could improve bones, the heart, infections, cancer, heart disease, longevity, even mental health. But among people I respect, opinion is now overwhelmingly that taking vitamin D does nothing unless you’re severely deficient. The central argument is that while vitamin D levels are correlated with ~all positive health outcomes, when you actually test vitamin D supplements against placebo in randomized trials, nothing ever happens.
The author acknowledges the scientific consensus while presenting a nuanced, personal perspective on interpreting data.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in