• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

New RCT studies challenge official dietary advice

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,453
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Two studies recently conducted show that the current dietary guidelines and nutrition advice is not providing the benefits claimed in relation to diabetes and CVD protection. Mainly based on American standard diet guidelines, the studies will have readacross to the UK Eatwell.

First study is is on health supplements recommended for heart and stroke prevention
https://annals.org/aim/article-abst...diovascular-outcomes-umbrella-review-evidence

Second study in the standard diet types accepted by the ADA and AHA in the US.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/108/2/266/5067923

The warning on Vit D and calcium is one I did not know, and will probably be more of interest to the older members in our community. This was a meta study of RCT trials data. so has the science behind it and is not a bloggers opinion.

Edied to get the correct description associated with each study report.
 
Last edited:

Recently Which recommended we only need Vit D as a supplement.
 
I am wondering if the calcium and vit D can cause a problem if the person doesn't also supplement with vit K2, since vit D needs K2 to help the body absorb it. Without proper absorption of vit D then the calcium wouldn't be used by the body properly and could cause calcium build up in blood vessels causing the increased risk of stroke. So what I am saying is maybe the supplements weren't taken in the best combination.

Also when someone has osteoporosis they are often prescribed calcium and vit D3 together with alendroinc acid (once a week) to help absorption.

Sometimes just picking up a bottle of tablets from the supermarket isn't the best way to use supplements, It's usually a much more complex equation that's needed
 
How does one know it has K2 in it, or even that it is D3 and not D2? It is not on either bottle thst I and my wife use.
 
Oldvatr said:
How does one know it has K2 in it, or even that it is D3 and not D2? It is not on either bottle thst I and my wife use.
Click to expand...

If it has K2 it should say so. I saw a post here slagging off the company that I bought mine from as scammers. I have to say that whilst they were an irritating USA outfit who kept trying to sell stuff after showing you pages and pages of obviously fake testimony, of the 4 supplements I got from them (this was before I had found this site), 2 were good, one was excellent and one was useless. I am still buying the vit D one direct from the manufacturer now. I don't buy the other 2 good supplements anymore as I no longer need them. Whilst the selling methods were deplorable their monthly leaflet contained a wealth of good health info. They were a very important step in me taking control of my own health. Yes, I know all this stuff is on the web for free, but back then I really didn't know where to turn.

Edit: The vit D spray I have is expensive, but worth it for me. Finding it was a huge step in helping myself get free of depression
 
@Oldvatr

With Vit D, unless it proudly flaunts the D3 all over the label, and charges more, then you will have D2 in the bottle.
I read that most of the prescriptions for D2 given out by NHS docs are D2, because they are cheaper.
Likewise multi-vits and mins, which I can no longer be bothered with.
Very few NHS docs have heard of K2, and muddle it with K1, so will never recommend it to patients because they don't know its usefulness in preventing calcium buildup in the arteries (atherosclerosis).

When I want to buy supplements I tend to log on to Amazon and do a search.
Then I scan down the list til I see a reputable brand (Solgar is a good one, brown glass bottles, good info on the label, etc.)
Then I zoom in on the label pic and kind of analyse it.

round numbers such as 100 or 1500mg usually mean synthetic supplements which are often less useful to the body
odd numbers such as 109 or 1872 mg usually mean natural sourced supplements which are always more expensive
the label gives other clues too, such as the form of the vit/min, the dose the brand thinks is useful, and so on.

I don't necessarily buy from Amazon, but I use it as a research starting point.

A lot of supplements (such as magnesium, B12 and D) come in a variety of different forms. usually with different levels of absorption and usefulness to the body.
You can google each one, but the basic take home idea that serves me very well is that the more it costs, the better use your body can make of it - and the more good it does.

Once I have narrowed in on a form, and the dosage I want, I then shop around for it online, and sometimes buy from Amazon.

I know you don't like Mercola (and I broadly agree with you), but his articles are often very useful in laying out the different forms of each vit or min and how they are produced.

I find this website list fascinating for info on the way vits and mins interact, but I lack the time or the enthusiasm to check back all the claims and references, unless I am very interested in one.
https://www.deannaminich.com/vitami...-complex-relationship-of-essential-nutrients/
And I find it problematic that she doesn't clearly distinguish between the different forms of (for example) K and D until you dig deeper, and of course it is a blog, which I know you don't like. But I just use these things as springboards, not gospels. She seems to just provide one reference per statement, which isn't enough in my view, but hey ho. Nothing is perfect.
 
Last edited:
There is something about that in this article from Healthline. WebMD also confirms need o avoid excess Vit D supplementation, but does not explain why.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-side-effects#section6
 
Last edited:
Actually Mercola taught me a lot in the early days when I was a Newbie, but some of his info proved to be a bit flaky which is why i do not use his info as a reputable source any more. But he did a lot to move diabetes care forward from the dark agesl

My wifes GP has recently stopped her Vit D supplement since the NHS was being charged £60 per 15ml bottle for childrens sublingual spray. She will in future get capsules instead, but her Parkinsons will make those difficult to swallow so we will end up splitting the cap and decanting into a pot of yoghurt like we do with the other meds she has to take. The current scrip item just says Vit D, and lists natural ingredients only. No vit K from what i see,
 
You can get D3 and K2 together, as drops on (yes, you've guessed it!) Amazon.
I also take extra K2, also in drop form, since I take largeish doses of D3 and really want it to get used properly. Also, good for teeth and gum health, which is always useful for people with diabetes.
 
I've been prescribed Adcal since my first test for Vit D showed I was nearly down to the level that requires intensive intervention (at that time this was going into hospital for an infusion) - it went up but then fell again and last year I was back down to 27.
I never needed extra calcium but NICE hadn't yet approved Vit D only tablets. I asked if it could be changed a couple of years later, but no.
I hated the taste of Adcal tablets and I rarely took the full dose and so started buying my own Vit D but my level was still hovering just above the critical range. Until this year - 13 months after going low carb and switching to fullfat milk, etc. it is finally into the 'normal' range.
 
I'm guessing you and @Oldvatr have seen Ivor Cummins interview re Vit K and improving atherosclerosis with it.
Patrick Thuet seems an interesting guy.. in case you didn't it's here.

 
BetterYou do a D3 and K2 spray which is stocked (at a price) in the UK by Holland and Barrett. And no, I do not have shares in BetterYou. If you are going to supplement many people find spraying directly onto the membranes of the mouth an easier and more effective uptake route.
 
bulkbiker said:
I'm guessing you and @Oldvatr have seen Ivor Cummins interview re Vit K and improving atherosclerosis with it.
Patrick Thuet seems an interesting guy.. in case you didn't it's here.

Click to expand...
Nope. I have heard of Ivor Cummings, but not seen anything of his. My knowledge came from a very tortuous endocrinology paper into vit D. It was mainly a treatise on how snlight converts in the skin cells and not supplement orientated at all.
 
That is the one they charge the NHS £60 a pop for - its the one my wife used to use.
 
I am confused about suppliments. Is the concensus that everyone needs them, diabetics need them, diabetics on Metformin need them or only those with measured deficiency need them? I have always gone along with the theory that if you have a varied diet including fish and dairy and get enough sunlight they are unnecessary.
 
@Mr_Pot - I only take D3 + K2, and a B12 complex, and I've only been taking those since my thyroid appears to have begun to fail. Those with poor thyroid function often have vitamin issues, with the double-whammy that it's a circular issue. For thyroid to function (with and without meds) at its best, vitamins need to be in a good place.

Personally, I would only take a supplement where I had been tested to justify it.
 

A measured deficiency would be the best indicator.

There is evidence that for Type 1 diabetics at least one of the issues is reduced thiamine (B1) levels which according to this artice "definitively has a role in the diabetic endothelial vascular diseases (micro and macroangiopathy), lipid profile, retinopathy, nephropathy, cardiopathy, and neuropathy."

Which is essentially every complication we have.

My feeling is that if that is the suggestion, and it is not going to cause me problems why not take additional B1 as a precaution?

This is the link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376872/

Also, for vitamin D there is simply not enough sunlight in the UK for all of us to have optimal vitamin D synthesis from sun exposure, especially if we are covered in suntan lotion when there is some sun so I take D3 with K2 supplements year round.

Supplements aren't a silver bullet for diabetic complications but they can help. Blood Sugar 101 has some good info on useful vs useless.

Best

Dillinger
 
What you say is for an Ideal world. Sadly most here on the forum would not be having the diagnostic testing to identify any deficiencies. The majority I woyld say are on standard NHS fare, in that testing does not include a full blood panel, or lipids, and is limited to possibly just an fbg from the lab and the ubiquitous HbA1c test. Depending on medication they may get a kidney function test and a liver function test. The luxury for vitamin deficiency tests and other more esoteric checks have to be specifically requested, and will be refused unless you are presenting with symptoms.
 
I asked for a test for Vit D deficiency, and was refused by my doc. Then I paid for it privately and yup, I was deficient, so now supplement.
This link is to a 2014 NHS costing statement showing that large chunks of the NHS patients are deficient in D, assessing the huge cost of testing and treating, and basically saying 'so only test high risk groups, and encourage everyone to get out into the sun a bit or fund their own supplements - yes, that is a very rough paraphrasing!
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph56/resources/costing-statement-69288013

Because of that, I have funded a few extra private tests, and discovered significant deficiencies in folate and B12 too - both of which I now supplement. These tests were never offered by a doc despite me describing the symptoms (particularly fatigue) repeatedly.

The one time I did manage to manoeuvre a folate test out of my doc (and it took some manoeuvreing!) the test result came back as 'sample unviable' and I was cheerfully told 'no further action! '
That is the point I started to pay for the multiple tests myself.

What I have been offered repeatedly were the very basic thyroid tests (I think they see a fat woman and think of thyroid), but so far that very basic thyroid test result has always been fine.

The NHS tests for potassium and magnesium are basic too. As I understand it, they test for the magnesium in the blood, not the tissues, and the body lowers reserves in the tissues to maintain levels in the blood. Therefore the body's cells can be deficient while the bloodstream levels show a sufficiency. I understand that a more accurate magnesium test (the EXA test) is to take some cells, which is of course much more expensive, and therefore not on the NHS list of available tests.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/magnesium-test#2
This study link shows that up to a third of low potassium (hypokalemia) may be missed because various factors during and after the test can give a falsely high reading.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662091/

So basically what I am saying is that
- I don't expect the NHS to reliably test and identify nutritional deficiencies
- I don't expect the NHS to be willing to run the tests in the first place
- I don't expect the NHS to spot the symptoms of deficiency to identify a need for the tests in the first place
- I take the view that I am responsible for monitoring my nutrition and deficiences and will then seek medical advice where I see a problem that I cannot deal with myself.

Obviously, I don't expect anyone else to have that attitude, so I am speaking for myself.
(I currently supplement with D3, K2, Potassium, Magnesium, Manganese, B vits, Omegas, Q10, folate and extra B12 and Vit C - and I feel better on them than off)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…