|
Late reply: I'm curious to see the results, but scientifically speaking Vitamin D is a tricky substance.
Determining if you have 'the right levels' is tricky, considering that the same sample can lead to 20-33% false positive rate of being misclassified as Vitamin D deficient[1], despite being measured using the same method, in two independent laboratories, compared with a different, gold standard: mass spectrometry. Moreover, even in cases with low Vitamin D, where medical professionals are unsure if treatment with Vitamin D would be beneficial at all (in this case: for osteoporosis prevention)[2]. Finally, recent randomised, double-blind clinical trial (n=5108) assessed if monthly administration of a high dosage (100.000 IU) of Vitamin D for more than a year would in any way prevent cardiovascular disease, and found no benefit in patients receiving treatment or placebo after a 3.3 year follow-up period[3]. Another study (n=2303, 4-year long, 2000 IU/d), testing the efficacy of Vitamin D to prevent cancer, actually suggests that low dose of Vitamin D is may increase cancer.[4] Taken together, I hope that this helps illustrate how 'making a prediction' or 'expecting a certain result' is neither scientifically ethical, nor possible, given the controversial results in the literature so far. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21395958 [2] http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMcp1009570 [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abst... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28350929 |