This Vitamin D Study Forced Me to Change My View
Related videos
What’s Causing Colon Cancer to Rise So Fast?
Dr Brad Stanfield
22.4k views
The 60-Year Cholesterol War Is Finally Over
Dr Brad Stanfield
45.7k views
This $2 Remedy Beats Every Cold Medicine
Dr Brad Stanfield
50.4k views
New Study Says I Was Wrong About NMN and NR?
Dr Brad Stanfield
28.8k views
Completely WRONG About Salt (New Study)
Dr Brad Stanfield
23.6k views
The Most Important Antioxidant Study I’ve Ever Read
Dr Brad Stanfield
34.5k views
Blood Pressure Targets Just Changed
Dr Brad Stanfield
194.3k views
Dementia Rates PLUNGED in Study of 1 Million People
Dr Brad Stanfield
73.2k views
New Vitamin D Study on Telomeres and Aging
Dr Brad Stanfield
57.6k views
The Best Diet to CRUSH Visceral Fat
Dr Brad Stanfield
45.4k views
New Vitamin D Research Challenges Current Deficiency Guidelines
A recent, novel trial forces a re-evaluation of standard Vitamin D advice, suggesting targeted supplementation might reduce future heart attacks in high-risk patients.
Short Summary
- The TARGET-D Trial examined aggressive, individualized Vitamin D dosing in post-heart attack patients, yielding promising (though statistically marginal) results for secondary prevention.
- Prior large trials failed to show benefits of blanket Vitamin D supplementation, leading guidelines to recommend against routine testing for healthy individuals.
- This new nuanced approach suggests that while current guidelines might remain, clinicians should consider personalized Vitamin D testing for specific high-risk groups.
This content reviews the shift from observational studies linking low Vitamin D to disease, through broad clinical trial failures, to the specific methodology and cautious implications of the recent TARGET-D trial concerning cardiovascular events.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
What’s Causing Colon Cancer to Rise So Fast?
Dr Brad Stanfield
22.4k views
The 60-Year Cholesterol War Is Finally Over
Dr Brad Stanfield
45.7k views
This $2 Remedy Beats Every Cold Medicine
Dr Brad Stanfield
50.4k views
New Study Says I Was Wrong About NMN and NR?
Dr Brad Stanfield
28.8k views
Completely WRONG About Salt (New Study)
Dr Brad Stanfield
23.6k views
The Most Important Antioxidant Study I’ve Ever Read
Dr Brad Stanfield
34.5k views
Blood Pressure Targets Just Changed
Dr Brad Stanfield
194.3k views
Dementia Rates PLUNGED in Study of 1 Million People
Dr Brad Stanfield
73.2k views
New Vitamin D Study on Telomeres and Aging
Dr Brad Stanfield
57.6k views
The Best Diet to CRUSH Visceral Fat
Dr Brad Stanfield
45.4k views
Top Comments (10)
I love how after all these years we still don't have this basic stuff figured out. I guess there's no money in finding out if vitamin D is actually good for you.
I wonder why they don't include k2
People have been calling out the fatal flaw in the studies showing no effects for YEARS: that they don't control for levels but rather just administer a blanket dose. Same for Omega-3.
There was a study that showed that high Vitamin D levels was associated with slower growth of prostate cancer.
During the Covid Debacle, it was shown to my satisfaction at least that there was a good correlation between the level of 25-hydroxy D and severe outcomes during a Covid infection.
As a provider, it has been frustrating seeing study after study not managing for a goal vit d level, but rather just giving a random dose for everyone. Finally, a more appropriate study was performed!
Dr. Stanfield, what about the famous study published on October 20, 2014 by Paul J. Veuggelers and John Paul Ekwaru? It found that there was a statistical error / miscalculation in the data that led to the government recommended daily 600 IU of vitamin D. The study says when adjusting for the error, instead of 600 IU, we should be taking 8,895 IU of vitamin D per day! Have you ever talked about this study or any videos about it? Isn't this a critical issue to address?
The reason i take high dosage of vitamin d + k2 for immune system modulation.
All 4 studies referenced in the video are linked in the video's description 💊Supplements that Dr Brad takes: https://drstanfield.com/pages/my-supplements 💊MicroVitamin (multivitamin & mineral that I take): https://drstanfield.com/products/microvitamin For extra insights + a free health checklist, sign up here 👉 https://drstanfield.com/pages/sign-up
i just keep my levels around 100ng/ml and take all cofactors and i feel well, science is so corrupted these days that i trust no studies, i will be my own trial and study and test directly on me
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
I love how after all these years we still don't have this basic stuff figured out. I guess there's no money in finding out if vitamin D is actually good for you.
I wonder why they don't include k2
People have been calling out the fatal flaw in the studies showing no effects for YEARS: that they don't control for levels but rather just administer a blanket dose. Same for Omega-3.
There was a study that showed that high Vitamin D levels was associated with slower growth of prostate cancer.
During the Covid Debacle, it was shown to my satisfaction at least that there was a good correlation between the level of 25-hydroxy D and severe outcomes during a Covid infection.
As a provider, it has been frustrating seeing study after study not managing for a goal vit d level, but rather just giving a random dose for everyone. Finally, a more appropriate study was performed!
Dr. Stanfield, what about the famous study published on October 20, 2014 by Paul J. Veuggelers and John Paul Ekwaru? It found that there was a statistical error / miscalculation in the data that led to the government recommended daily 600 IU of vitamin D. The study says when adjusting for the error, instead of 600 IU, we should be taking 8,895 IU of vitamin D per day! Have you ever talked about this study or any videos about it? Isn't this a critical issue to address?
The reason i take high dosage of vitamin d + k2 for immune system modulation.
All 4 studies referenced in the video are linked in the video's description 💊Supplements that Dr Brad takes: https://drstanfield.com/pages/my-supplements 💊MicroVitamin (multivitamin & mineral that I take): https://drstanfield.com/products/microvitamin For extra insights + a free health checklist, sign up here 👉 https://drstanfield.com/pages/sign-up
i just keep my levels around 100ng/ml and take all cofactors and i feel well, science is so corrupted these days that i trust no studies, i will be my own trial and study and test directly on me