This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders, Other  • Cardiovascular System  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Hematology, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John H. Glaser, MS

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Golomb et al¹ suggest that calcium may have counteracted the effect of vitamin D in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study, as the reason for the calcium–vitamin D supplement showing no benefit against myocardial infarction, whereas Giovannucci et al² found that higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations lowered the risk of myocardial infarction in men.

An alternative explanation is that vitamin D supplements have a relatively small contribution to vitamin D plasma levels. Chiebowski et al³ found that many women who, before the WHI study, were ingesting the lowest level of vitamin D (diet plus supplements) had the highest plasma levels of vitamin D. The low correlation coefficient (r = 0.19) for supplements vs plasma levels shows that other factors such as sunlight exposure, body mass index, or genetic factors have a more significant effect on plasma levels. In fact, Chlebowski et al³ showed a similar contradiction . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Vitamin D Supplements vs Plasma Level—Reply
Beatrice Golomb
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(16):1536-1537.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT