Talk:Vitamin D/Archive 2

message: A comment about the entire page... At present all the citation links are out of synch (2 points to 1, 3 points to 2, etc). I don't have the skills or knowledge to fix it myself. 77.83.206.51 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deserves a mention here. --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:MEDRS.  Please see Dementia and Alzheimer's disease.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible causes 

message: Suggestion.
A greater emphasis should be placed on the need for vitamin D supplements during the winter months in the northern hemisphere. (I might expect the same in the southern hemisphere)
In reading a health magazine I came across two views.
One by a PHD, suggested that "because of less light during winter" vitamin D was required.
Well that is wrong.  Yes there is less light during winter, but the real problem is that all light during October and March in the North, ie above 40th parallel has no UV B. In the same article another scientist stated exactly that.
I was falsely educated to believe that the problem in winter is the lack of sunlight, or 'adequate' sunlight.  Two types of half-truths that disguise the actual truth of the matter.
This is a far greater problem than we realize and some government agencies are becoming aware of it.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths about sunlight and Vitamin D. 

message: Chart suggestion for vitamins and minerals.
Having been in business with a herbal department, there appears to be a need for a standardized presentation of vitamins and minerals to provide handy information to the general public.
Suggestion the following graph, if someone with this ability can present it as so.
Recommend a stardaized chart.
Top lines, recommended daily allowance.
Then prioritized items that provide the element, together with amount of item in each serving and a percentage of the recommended daily allowance.
Why?
Well say vitamin C.
One glass of orange juice.   100%
Vitamin D.
One egg, 20.    3%
At the bottom of the chart important co ingredients required, and or negative factors to absorption.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart suggestion for vitamins and minerals. 

message: The article lists a bunch of studies showing a correlation between low levels of Vit D and various diseases.  Throughout it is implicitly assumed that low Vit D *causes* the disease, rather than being a symptom.  I imagine this is true, but are there any studies showing that increasing the level of vit D in a population *results in* improved health?  The better prognosis for patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Summer is suggestive, but one would hope there is more.  E.g. what are the effects of taking vit D pills? Mcswell (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beneficial Effects 

message: "Study shows increased risk of bone and heart disease"  Study shows millions of kids could be low in Vitamin D.  Brian Pearson (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millions of US children low in vitamin D 

message: This is just a subjective impression of reading the Hathcock et al. 2007 (i.e. Amway/Bayer/GlaxoSmithKline/etc.) paper: it seems to me that the language is a little unscientific in several places, e.g. describing a report finding adverse effects at relatively low doses. Instead of saying, hey, there's an inconsistency and it needs to be understood, they seem to say that it should be ignored because it differs from the others: "Thus, these results are inconsistent and conflict with the preponderance of the clinical trial database for high-dose vitamin D and therefore are not considered to credibly contradict the 250 µg NOAEL."  It's possible that Narang et al. did something wrong, but it's also possible that the majority of studies have a common methodological error that Narang et al. did correctly. 
Anyway, what's more important is that we don't want this article to turn into an advertisement, so clarifying what is independent research and what is conflict-of-interest research can help improve the quality of the article. Boud (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the text is incredibly weaselly worded.  It doesn't mention that there were four authors, two that had no such associations. Instead it implies that all the authors (colleagues) had the same COI.  Cherry picking data from the main text is not allowed by WP:MEDRS; you have to stick to the abstract. --Michael C. Price talk 23:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The recent addition to the text is an improvement, but I am still concerned that this is cherry picking and in violation of WP:MEDRS.  Why is this study selected out for this treatment and not all the others cited?--Michael C. Price talk 23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: quickly before another edit conflict... Boud (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  It's unclear what you think is weaselly worded. If there were ten other non-COI authors, then it would probably be relevant, but with two COI authors and two apparently non-COI authors, who all four presumably know and trust each other well enough to co-author a paper, i don't see that it makes a huge difference if there are 1, 2 or 4 non-COI co-authors. One COI author is enough to (subtly) bias the article in favour of the interests in conflict. However, i've added the info about how many other authors there are their declared non-COI. Hmmmm... Maybe my wording did make it sound a bit like "their colleagues" were by implication quite close to the Amway/Bayer/etc. too. There's no harm in making it clear that the other two declare no COI. Feel free to further NPOV the wording. Boud (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: i don't follow your comment about cherry picking from the main text - unless you're referring to my "subjective impression" above, which is not a proposal of what to add to the text, it's just a bit of common sense thinking out loud about the credibility of Hathcock et al. 2007. Boud (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Why is this study selected out for this treatment and not all the others cited? - please feel free to find COI's for the other [Vit D research] articles. i'm just one of many editors of this [wikipedia] article. Boud (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: This might be useful: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20080213.html "And their roles were anything but minor. One applied "risk assessment methodology" to the results and the other "searched literature and summarized relevant findings." Ultimately what the four wrote looks extremely authoritative, and might well be so, but to my mind this collaboration represents not an apparent conflict of interest, but a genuine conflict of interest." Boud (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Hey, apparently Vieth does have a COI: "...[Vieth] and his wife have set up a vitamin D company in Toronto called Ddrops Inc. She is now the company’s president and it sells a year’s supply of 1,000 IU liquid vitamin D for about $20. "I was told my name was being taken off papers because of my wife’s occupation. That is something I find infuriating and upsetting," he said.  A little additional research found that Elaine Vieth has told the Hamilton Spectator that pharmacies initially had little interest in selling her product, which can be sprinkled on food or in drinks, but that after the Creighton cancer study appeared she sold 30,000 bottles within two days."  Boud (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an interesting link (I've read it all -- you don't need to block quote).  But when I tried to source a reduction in cancer found by a B-vitamin study, I was reverted and told in no uncertain terms that I was in violation of WP:MEDRS.  It seems only information in scientific abstracts is acceptable. --Michael C. Price talk 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for quoting too much, i'll assume you know how to click your mouse :). WP:MEDRS does say at the top to use common sense, and regarding abstracts it seems mostly to say that you should skim-read the full article if possible in order to better understand. i don't see that it says literally to only quote use info in abstracts. i can understand the danger of "cherry picking" out of a research article, given that the authors have (in principle) done their best to choose the most important points to put in the abstract. On the other hand, the COI issue is not about what aspects of the medical research are most important, it's about possible systematic and maybe subtle biases in the research. i suspect that if a wikipedia guidelines debate regarding whether or not we are allowed to state that medical researchers had COI with pharmaceutical (or nutraceutical) companies, it would not end up saying that we have to hide that information. i've never seriously participated in a guidelines debate, i'm just making a (non-conspiracy-theory :) prediction. Boud (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: How can "a dietary supplement trade association" benefit either from more people taking Vitamin D, or from people taking more Vitamin D? After all, they don't own Vitamin D. Anybody can go into business and produce more Vitamin D, thus the price will drop. This whole business of alleged "conflict of interest" is a non-issue IMHO. --Dyuku (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amway/Bayer/GlaxoSmithKline recommended 5-fold increase in safe upper limit 

message: Why does it only effect bones  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.117.137 (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  vitamin D basics 

message: If anyone is interested, here is a CBC news story I read today that might provide a source to some of the unsupported statements in the article.  Possibly some new ideas?
CBC Vitamin D - 2008.5.16
Alan.ca (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  For review, CBC News Story about Vitamin D 

message: There is inconsistency in the literature as to whether avocado may be considered a substantial source of vitamin D. One proponent is Jame A. Duke (see 'The green pharmacy guide to healing foods',2008). Some papers are specifically devoted to the presence of vitamin D in avocado; for example (Zanobini A, Firenzuoli AM, Bianchi A, Isolation and Determination of vitamin-D in avocado (Persea-Gratissima); BOLLETTINO DELLA SOCIETA ITALIANA DI BIOLOGIA SPERIMENTALE, 50 (12): 887-891 1974. However, most mainstream sources, including this article, do not acknowledge these reports.  Openlyskeptical 21:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems unlikely, as all known biological processes need UV light to produce vitamin D. That includes mushrooms. It's possible avocado SKIN contains some D if exposed to sun, but you wouldn't get that from eating it, anyway. I'm skeptical. SBHarris 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the USDA database gives zero on Vitamin D2, D3 for raw avocado.- Wolfkeeper 01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another advocate of the position that avocado is a good source of vitamin D is webMD; see http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-890-AVOCADO.aspx?activeIngredientId=890&activeIngredientName=AVOCADO&source=3 Openlyskeptical 21:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to be a reliable source for this.- Wolfkeeper 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. None of the sources the article cites seem to say anything about vitamin D (from their titles, they are about other avocado topics). I've posted a challenge on WebMD about it. SBHarris 01:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  avocado a good source of vitamin D? 

message: Interesting assertions in , if reliably sourced, could be added to the article. Rod57 (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-factors, skin production, tests 

message: The section on vegetarian sources of vitamin D contains the claim "Mushrooms exposed to UV light are the only known vegetarian sources of (Vitamin D2)".  This is a serious misstatement and is unverified by either source listed [52,53].  Both sources suggest that mushrooms exposed to UV light are a good possible source of vitamin D, but neither suggest that this is the only source.
There are other vegetarian options available.  Vitamin D3 from sheep's wool is perhaps the most popular synthesis method, even for non-vegetarians[].  While this is not a vegan source, it fits the broader term 'vegetarian' since it is only an animal by-product, not an animal itself.  Also, all types of fungus use ergosterol rather than cholesterol in basic cell functions.  Any fungus exposed to UV radiation can synthesis vitamin D2 from ergosterol; the claim that it is only mushrooms is too narrow (although it may be the only method that is being used commercially).
I have not changed the article because I am new at this and would appreciate second opinions, but I would appreciate someone considering revising the section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.90.44 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mushrooms and vitamin D 

message: FYI, the  and other templates within the article do not work properly due to Wikipedia:Template limits caused by the many citation templates in the article. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, was going to swap the  for  but then there are screens and screens of "Cite error: <ref> tag defined in <references> has no name attribute.". — MrDolomite • Talk 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: i don't think it has as much to do with the number of templates as that some pages like Template:Cite pmid/18689399 include a lot more than just a citation.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: also Template:Cite pmid/4377866 is bad.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 22:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry Chris, I was fixing it independently off-line and overwrote your last edit, which might be fixing things as well or even better. I argue that cite pmid and cite doi templates should not be used here because they are treated as individual templates and (will) overflow the limit on template number per page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: what are you talking about? the overflow problem was not caused by  or . the refs all worked fine http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin_D&oldid=351851066 when those two templates were used. the problem was caused by two pages where the citation bot dumped the whole article into the cite pmid page. i've already filed a bug report.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've done right now was: took your last edit, changed  and  to  and re-run citation bot. This should not change anything in the factual content, thus feel free to revert. After your last fix, it is not easy to reproduce the crash, but it occurred, which to me means the / templates are more vulnerable than  - more difficult to locate an error for a newbie. Please educate me as I admit I do not understand the exact mechanism. Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflist broken 

message: *In overweight persons increased fat mass is inversely associated with 25OHD levels (Lucas et al 2005; Bolland et al 2006).   This association may confound the reported relationships between low vitamin D status and conditions which occur more commonly in obesity (Field et al 2001) as the circulating 25(OH)D underestimates their total body stores (Wortsman et al 2000).  
Lucas et al 2005 and Bolland et al 2006: both found significant negative correlations between 25OHD and fat percentage, fat mass, and body mass index across all participants, not just fat mass and not just the overweight. Lucas and Bolland are from the same team; Bolland refers to Lucas and adds to it. The Lucas ref is redundant. Field et al 2007 is an account of chronic diseases that obesity is a risk factor for and Worstman 2000 attributes low serum 25(OH)D in obesity to its deposition in body fat compartments. The Wikipedia article seems to be drawing the conclusion that some of the morbidity associated with obesity may be due to low serum 25(OH)D and/or some of the effects attributed to low 25OHD may be due to fatness. None of the sources cited draw this conclusion. Anthony (talk)
::Suggested text  Because 25(OH)D dissolves in fat serum measurements of vitamin D tend to decrease as the body mass index increases (Giovannucci, 2005). Serum vitamin D levels in overweight or obese persons underestimate their total body stores (Wortsman et al., 2000) which are significantly lower than in leaner individuals in similar environments (Arunabh et al., 2003 Kumar et al., 2009), this places them disproportionately in the lowest quartiles and quintiles of populations stratified by 25(OH)D level. It is not known how bioavailable the 25(OH)D in fat is however obesity remains a possible confounding factor  for associations between low 25(OH)D levels and poor health outcomes. (Reddy & Gilchrist Overagainst (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Body fat

message: *There are associations between low 25(OH)D levels and a very wide range of diseases, (Melamed et al. 2008) including several autoimmune diseases (Tavera-Mendoza & White 2007; Holick 2004; Evatt et al. 2008).
The references link 25(OH)D levels with only one autoimmune disease (MS), not several. The associations of diseases with 25(OH)D levels in these ref's are as follows: MS (Tavera-Mendoza & White 2007), prostate cancer, hypertension and colon cancer (Holick 2004), and Parkinson's (Evatt et al. 2008). (Other diseases, and some of these, were associated with season, latitude, sun exposure and vitamin D intake.) Anthony (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Circulating 25(OH)D levels and disease risk