Study on vitamin d levels vs type 2 incidence, with incidence >50% higher with low levels of vitamin d.
grh-diabetes-paper2015.pdf (584.2 KB)
1 Like
Could be, but I’m not convinced of a correlation… Could be that people with T2D just happen to spend less time outside? OR just don’t eat the things that help increase Vitamin D. I take supplements regularly, and see no difference with and without vitamin D for blood sugar control.
Or that people who spend less time outside tend to have lifestyle traits that tend to make them more susceptible… e.g. sedentary jobs, etc.
1 Like
Yes - either way, as has often been said about many of these anecdotal studies, association is not the same as causation.
1 Like
But association is all we will ever have in this pursuit of understanding… its not like some day they’re going to discover definitive proof that only people who touched some particular poisonous doorknob in their life developed diabetes. Just because correlation / association aren’t absolutely definitive doesn’t make them worthless…
Probably a combination of all the correlational factors. I’ve essentially stopped drinking milk, but take One A Day vitamins. Other than my A1C and fasting Bg, there’s nothing abnormal about my bloodwork. Oh, the eosinophils are high.
This is a population study which found a correlation between diabetes incidence and low vitamin d levels. From the literature review this appears to be an area of ongoing research. Low vitamin d (vit d acts like a hormone ) is implicated in autoimmune conditions and healthy immune system.
Can increasing vitamin d levels reduce population incidence of diabetes, remains to be answered.
For those of us who already have diabetes, it would probably be wise to test vitamin d levels and supplement as necessary to maintain levels adequately.
As stated, correlations alone are meaningless. Too many potential variables that have to be isolated from the analysis. Then, causation has to be determined. From 1936 until 2000, the whether the Washington Redskins won their final home game before the US presidential election was a 100% predictor of whether the incumbent party held the presidency. That’s 17 consecutive elections, the odds of this correlation are miniscule. No one, however, thinks there was any causative relationship at all.
1 Like
A lot of people in North America don’t get enough D. It may not mean anything at all.
Or, perhaps it could mean a lot… hard to say, not the first time the association has been noted in research. Correlation has been observed to type 1 as well
I have low vitamin D level and take a daily supplement, I believe that I do get what would be considered an adequate amount from my diet, I work for the most part outdoors but still it is low. So this subject interest me.
I do wonder if low vitamin D contributes to Type 2 or if its the other way around and Type 2 cause my low vitamin D.
I also have very low vitamin d without supplementation, as dues my daughter who is now developing diabetes.
Low vitamin d is known to be common in people with autoimmune conditions. I saw a rheumatologist a few years back due to joint issues - still unresolved - and one of the first things he tested was vitamin d levels. It is known to be common in multiple sclerosis, and alternative treatment approaches include raising vitamin d levels.
Low vitamin d is implicated in flu illness with incidence highest towards end of winter when d levels are lowest.
It is, implicated in preterm births and other pregnancy complications. Vitamin D Council is leading expert group on this. Certainly interesting works.
There are genetic markers for probable low vitamin d. I have those markers, as does my daughter. Supplementing to be sure our levels are normal is prudent.
Is it implicated in cause, or is it effect? Not known yet.
My doctor is big on testing for this. I supplement. Vitamin D is so important for heart health too, which makes it very important for diabetics.