I’d hedge a little. I think it’s fair to say that doctors and scientists have proven that severe deficiency (below ~25 nmol/L) is definitely bad. The question is if going from 25 to 40 or 40 to 60 nmol/L is helpful. Personally, I think it’s genuinely possible that the answer is no, but in the absence of certainty, it seems pretty clear that the safest thing is to avoid those low levels.
Statistically speaking, I 100% agree with you. The primary reason these trials didn’t give us a clear answer is that they weren’t testing “the benefits of supplementing vitamin D if you’re low” but more something like “the benefits of giving extra vitamin D to a population where most people are already supplementing”.
I’d hedge a little. I think it’s fair to say that doctors and scientists have proven that severe deficiency (below ~25 nmol/L) is definitely bad. The question is if going from 25 to 40 or 40 to 60 nmol/L is helpful. Personally, I think it’s genuinely possible that the answer is no, but in the absence of certainty, it seems pretty clear that the safest thing is to avoid those low levels.
Statistically speaking, I 100% agree with you. The primary reason these trials didn’t give us a clear answer is that they weren’t testing “the benefits of supplementing vitamin D if you’re low” but more something like “the benefits of giving extra vitamin D to a population where most people are already supplementing”.