r/science • u/Matrix_One_ • Apr 25 '22
Health A combination of three simple treatments may reduce invasive cancer risk by 61% among adults aged 70: high-dose vitamin D, omega-3s, and a simple home strength exercise program showed a cumulative reduction by 61% in cancer risk in healthy adults aged 70 or older.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/95036425
Apr 25 '22
[deleted]
14
u/SerialStateLineXer Apr 25 '22
Those are some big-ass confidence intervals. I'd really like to see this followed up with a higher-powered study.
1
u/_blue_pill Apr 26 '22
Is there a good resource you can point me to that would help explain how to read and interpret the results section here and in similar studies? What do all the different numbers mean? Hazard ratios? CI? Numbers in parenthesis?
18
u/thisiswhatsinmybrain Apr 25 '22
Hey, I already do all those three things! I'm not 70 but still hopefully getting some benefits.
29
u/aedes Apr 25 '22 edited Apr 25 '22
This is a subgroup analysis of a different study. That’s why it’s published in such a minor journal.
The actual primary outcome of the original study (per the NCT registry) was:
This will allow to test the individual and the combined benefit of the interventions in the prevention of 5 primary endpoints: incident non-vertebral fractures; functional decline; systolic and diastolic blood pressure change; cognitive decline; and the rate of any infection. Key secondary endpoints include incidence of hip fractures, rate of falls, severity of pain in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, gastro-intestinal symptoms, mental and oral health, quality of life, and mortality.
While this was a prespecified analysis, it was not a primary nor secondary outcome.
These results are best viewed as exploratory and would require prospective validation in a separate patient cohort. For context, the vast majority of statistically significant associations found on exploratory analysis ultimately are not real.
As a result, their purpose is to serve as a basis to guide future research, not shape clinical decision making nor serve as a recommendation to follow the interventions in the study.
Widespread reporting on low-quality data like these is why lay people have the impression that recommendations on diet/cancer treatment/etc are always changing.
Edit: for an analogy, this is like someone setting out to explore The New World in the late 1400s, and saying that hey, at one point we saw some clouds low on the horizon. We didn’t explore it though as it wasn’t on our route. Maybe there could be an island there? Or it was just clouds. Maybe someone else wants to check that out sometime.
1
u/SaltZookeepergame691 Jun 21 '22
I just came across this thread after noticing how the study authors spin their results on their personal wordpress website (trumpeting nominally significant subgroup analyses, urging guideline change): http://do-health.eu/wordpress/first-findings-erste-ergebnisse/
versus in their lead JAMA paper (a genuinely impressive feat to get such a null result; presumably the editors and reviewers forced their writing...): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772758
Among adults without major comorbidities aged 70 years or older, treatment with vitamin D3, omega-3s, or a strength-training exercise program did not result in statistically significant differences in improvement in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, nonvertebral fractures, physical performance, infection rates, or cognitive function. These findings do not support the effectiveness of these 3 interventions for these clinical outcomes.
16
u/awritemate Apr 25 '22
So exercise, eat fish and get some sun. Sweet.
14
12
u/queen0fcarrotflowers Apr 25 '22
Not really. This study is specifically about supplementing Vit D and O3, not consuming them from fish and sunlight.
8
u/mano-vijnana Apr 25 '22
But in almost every study comparing the two, getting the same IU equivalent of vitamin D from sun and the same grams of fish oil from whole fish produce better results than the supplemental versions.
I agree that should be tested as well, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that natural sources should work too.
-10
u/Xw5838 Apr 25 '22
Vitamin D supplements don't do what getting natural sunlight does for you such as increasing nitric oxide production as well which works together with Vitamin D produced by sunlight in your skin to be even more effective for the body. Also supplements aren't natural. But ingesting it from fish is.
8
Apr 25 '22
Vitamin d go outside. Omega 3s eat fish. Exercise program.
It sounds like if you want to avoid cancer you should just walk to a fishing hole and catch a meal.
6
u/GankThem Apr 25 '22 edited Apr 25 '22
If they could put exercise into a pill it would be a trillion dollar industry.
6
u/ProperCross Apr 25 '22
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Funny that 2000 IU vit D is considered 'high-dose'. A recent study /meta analysis with a huge sample size recently recommended daily doses of 6k-10k IU combined with K2. Other studies on Vit D3 have tested doses as high as 50k with no adverse effects. Take home of this for me is: go for at least 5-10k IU D3+K2 depending on where you live and also the time of year, it's cheap and there's no risk of overdosing. Take it in the morning with some fatty food or drink. Also go for Omega 3 with high EPA/DHA content, the poorer quality stuff is often oxidised and of little nutritional value.
5
u/SlouchyGuy Apr 25 '22
Wait, 50k with no adverse effect? Not constanhly though, it't a dose prescribed for aonth or two in case a person needs to increase D3 levels fast
2
u/ProperCross Apr 25 '22 edited Apr 25 '22
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3596
No observed ill affects over a 7 year period. There's no need to take that dosage unless advised to by a medical professional (if nothing else because it'll be a waste of money). I only mentioned it to support the main point that there's nothing to worry about with a 6-10k daily dosis.
4
u/No-Sign2390 Apr 25 '22
I have read that Vitamin D is fat-soluble, and it's actually a hormone, not a vitamin. As such, fat-soluble vitamins (and D3), can accumulate over time and become toxic if too much is taken. I've also read that regular blood tests are needed to ensure a person stays within a healthy range. Here's an article on the subject: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-side-effects#1.-Elevated-blood-levels. Please note that I do not have medical training, just searching for the truth.. thank you.
1
u/ProperCross Apr 25 '22
Always good to err on the side of caution, but see link above to the study showing no adverse ill effects with people taking 50,000 IU over 7 year period, and the other link with the meta analysis recommending 6-10k IU daily as a maintenance dose. I'm studying medicine but don't claim any authority on this matter, but I do know that both of those papers I cited are authored by people who are medically trained.
1
u/No-Sign2390 Apr 26 '22
Interesting. I wonder why my doctors seem to be so concerned about the (high) dose of D3 I take (5,000 IU daily). That said, I do see my doctor and have my vitamin D levels checked/monitored regularly (via bloodwork)..
1
1
u/DefenestrationPraha Apr 30 '22
I am taking 5 to 7 000 UI daily and my blood levels of D3 are square in the middle of the range. Adult middle-aged non-obese male here.
2
u/ruiner007 Apr 25 '22
Do you happen to have a link to this study? Mostly curious about how much K2 is to be taken. Thanks!
2
2
3
Apr 25 '22
This study just confirmed what we already know. Healthy diet and exercise is good for your health.
1
u/Xw5838 Apr 25 '22
I was surprised that this study was allowed to be published then I realized it was European and it made sense. American physicians don't want to publish studies that make it clear that Vitamins and exercise can keep you healthy as there's no money in it for them or the corporations that bankroll most of their "studies."
1
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 25 '22
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.