A bone to pick – the debate on vitamin D

The issue of vitamin D supplementation is never far out of the headlines, as subscribers to the ESE daily news alerts are no doubt aware. Not a week goes by without a new publication associating vitamin D deficiency with a variety of poor health outcomes. The evidence to the contrary, on the other hand, receives less in the way of glamorous attention but enjoys a similar weight in academic circles...

...making it the perfect topic for the first debate of ECE 2013, and with an audience of over 1,000 it was clearly the subject on everyone’s lips.

Speaking for the motion ‘We all need more’, Professor Chantal Mathieu (Belgium) cited animal studies, the confounding factor of calcium and correlations between vitamin D and a variety of disease states such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and indeed mortality. She also highlighted convincing evidence suggesting a role in the immune system.

Arguing that it was clear that vitamin D sufficiency may indeed be essential for optimum health, and that a small additional dose could be achieved with 30 minutes of sun exposure daily, Professor Mathieu concluded that we could all do with going “back to nature” and benefit from 400-800 units of vitamin D a day.

In his argument against the motion, Professor Mark Cooper (Australia) drew on his own personal experiences, having just moved to Sydney thus enjoying a ‘UV advantage’, and having had an apparently healthy colleague question him on vitamin D after turning out to be deficient. Professor Cooper drew upon the larger clinical trials of vitamin D which, on the whole, show largely negative results.

In pointing out that these trials apparently hold the record for being the lowest number of trials subjected to the highest number of meta-analyses, Professor Cooper demonstrated the clear need for consensus on the issue, concluding that vitamin D deficiency can be an indicator of poor lifestyle.

Whilst it became apparent that neither advocated supplementing an entire population, it was clear that the debate rode on what was meant by ‘we all need more’, or, rather, whether the ‘more’ is delivered in drug or sunshine form. Perhaps we could all do with getting outside a little more, and with summer approaching fast that can’t be a bad thing!

Tweet us your thoughts on the debate @ESEndocrinology. You can also use the hashtag #ece13 to follow tweets on the Congress.