this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
8 points (100.0% liked)

Public Health

1787 readers
22 users here now

For issues concerning:

🩺 This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.

Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)

Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@mander.xyz
otter@lemmy.ca
8
Vitamin D and calcium may not support bone health as much as thought: study (globalnews.ca)
submitted 2 weeks ago by otter@piefed.ca to c/publichealth@mander.xyz
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Seventy-three per cent of participants were 'not at high risk of fractures or falls,' with calcium, vitamin D or combined supplements having 'little to no effect on fractures.'

The study: https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj-2025-088050

Results This review included 69 trials involving 153 902 participants. Participants in most of the trials were community dwelling (87%) and not at high risk of fractures or falls (73%). For the primary outcome of any fracture, little to no effect was found from use of calcium supplements (11 trials, 9067 participants; risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.01; moderate certainty), vitamin D supplements (36 trials, 92 045 participants; 1.00, 0.95 to 1.06; high certainty), or combined supplementation (15 trials, 51 126 participants; 0.91, 0.84 to 0.99; high certainty). Calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation appeared to have little to no effect on other fracture and fall outcomes, based largely on moderate to high certainty of evidence. The findings remained robust after an extensive exploration of heterogeneity across multiple subgroup analyses. Evidence for high risk patients or those requiring residential care was limited for many outcomes for calcium monotherapy and for combined supplementation.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No shit, the vitamin K family is constantly overlooked. Vitamin D moves calcium from gut to the blood, vitamin K moves calcium to the bone. Lots of vitamin D and little vitamin K likely calcifies arteries and contributes to atherosclerosis

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I concur.

Japan in particular has been at the forefront of studying the effects of vitamin K on osteoporosis and post menopausal women, with this study finding that supplementing it with fairly high doses was able to maintain bone density while the control group lost bone density. So the correlation between vitamin k and bone health/density is pretty clear.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

yeah also you get it from leafy greens which is something people with poor diets often are not eating.

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 2 points 2 weeks ago

This is just big D propaganda. Fuck the big D. It’s always trying to shove its big D agenda down your throat.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago

87 per cent of whom were living in communities

Don't most of us live in communities?

I understand this is probably a euphemism for "elder care facility/nursing home", etc, but just say it.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

this makes no sense. why isn't vitamin k in there? This is just delivering calcium to the bloodstream.