Over the years, I have been skeptical of the safety and value of vitamin suppkements. However, a new study in the Medical Journal of Australia has finally set me straight. I’m off to stock up on Vitamin D tablets!
Hopkinson JA. Hopkinson NS. The Hobbit: An unexpected deficiency. Med J Austr. 2013;199(11):805-6.
Abstract:
Objective: Vitamin D has been proposed to have beneficial effects in a wide range of contexts. We investigate the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency, caused by both aversion to sunlight and unwholesome diet, could also be a significant contributor to the triumph of good over evil in fantasy literature.
Design: Data on the dietary habits, moral attributes and martial prowess of various inhabitants of Middle Earth were systematically extracted from J R R Tolkien’s novel The hobbit.
Main outcome measures: Goodness and victoriousness of characters were scored with binary scales, and dietary intake and habitual sun exposure were used to calculate a vitamin D score (range, 0–4).
Results: The vitamin D score was significantly higher among the good and victorious characters (mean, 3.4; SD, 0.5) than the evil and defeated ones (mean, 0.2; SD, 0.4; P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Further work is needed to see if these pilot results can be extrapolated to other fantastic situations and whether randomised intervention trials need to be imagined.
OMG, who knew! Thanks for this, made my day 🙂
Pingback: Evidence Concerning Vitamin and Mineral Supplements- Safety and Efficacy | The SkeptVet Blog
Vitamin D could help control TB in animals, new study shows.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160928153352.htm
Hey Doc, sometimes you have to admit, that nature can do things better or as good as mechanical man. lol
While vitamin supplements have both proven risks and benefits, most use of these supplements is pointless and irrational. The most recent evidence, for example, suggests little to no benefit and potential harm for most people taking vitamin D.
The concept of “natural” is so vague as to be nearly meaningless, so such a comparison can’t be very clearly made. All medicine, whether you call it “natural” or not, is about balancing risks and benefits, and to do that correctly we need accurate information. Science gives us the most accurate information possible, imperfect but better than the alternatives. So-called “natural” medicine often relies heavily on anecdote and tradition and ignores much of the information provided by science, and as such it is often less safe and less effective than science-based medicine.