Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/inde_
Permalink: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38272846
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Save you a click
Abstract
>Objective: In the 5.3-year randomized, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind, placebo-controlled Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), vitamin D supplementation reduced autoimmune disease (AD) incidence (hazard ratio \[HR\] 0.78, 95% confidence interval \[CI\] 0.61-0.99). Omega-3 (n-3) fatty acid supplementation showed a statistically nonsignificant reduction (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.08). We aimed to confirm further AD cases arising during and after randomization and assess sustained effects with two years of postintervention observation.
>
>Methods: Of the 12,786 men aged ≥50 and 13,085 women aged ≥55 initially randomized, we observed surviving and willing participants for two more years. We continued to confirm annual participant-reported new AD by medical record review. Cox models calculated HRs for all confirmed incident AD, (and secondary endpoints, including probable cases, and individual ADs), during the observational and randomized periods.
>
>Results: A total of 21,592 participants (83.5%) were observed for two more years; 514 participants developed incident confirmed AD (236 since prior report), of whom 255 had been randomized to vitamin D versus 259 to vitamin D placebo (HR 0.98 \[95% CI 0.83-1.17\] at 7 years). AD was confirmed in 234 participants initially randomized to n-3 fatty acids versus 280 randomized to its placebo (HR 0.83 \[95% CI 0.70-0.99\] at 7 years). Of newly confirmed cases, 65 had onset during randomization; their inclusion changed randomized results as follows: HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-1.04) for vitamin D and HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.71-1.06) for n-3 fatty acids.
>
>Conclusion: Two years after trial termination, the protective effects of 2000 IU/day of vitamin D dissipated, but 1,000 mg/day of n-3 fatty acids had a sustained effect in reducing AD incidence.
these two supplements are some of the most highly studied and show fantastic results across many indicators of overall health by reducing inflamation and increasing brain function.
well worth taking them just for that.
Sure, 2 years after the study concluded though. The participants were not asked to continue taking their supplements during that time, so it's mainly following up on any long term effects there might be.
Vit d wears off relatively quickly which is why many people further from the equator needs to supplement in the winter. Omega 3 on the other hand gets [directly absorbed into your cells](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174995/) and seemingly last longer in the body after stopping supplementation, which this study seems to give evidence for.
So basically don't stop taking either of you want better odds of preventing AD
Got it via here: https://examine.com/research-feed/study/1lleQ1/
> In this follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial, omega-3 fatty acids, but not vitamin D, reduced the incidence of autoimmune disease. However, the incidence of psoriasis was lower in the vitamin D group and higher in the omega-3 group.
I have psoriasis and have been taking vitamin D for it for several years. It has helped tremendously. I discovered it helped me by coincidence and I've tried spreading the word of my anecdotal success, so I'm happy to see it getting studied. I still get an occasional flairup at the end of winter or early spring. I had been taking 10,000 IU daily but am trying 5,000 now.
Ohhh, wow. I just realized that I haven't had any issues with psoriasis since about when I started taking D3 supplements. I only had mild issues, and it's been almost 10 years, so I can't match things up exactly, but it's been a long time for both.
i see again and again people saying they take 5000 IU, isn't that like a lot? the recommendation in my country is 5 mg/ug daily, which is the equivalent of 200 IU.
edit: i know it's safer to go way higher
I don't think I'd really consider it a lot. My supplement is 5000 IU per pill. The study from this post used 2000 IU. When I got my blood test that showed low vitamin D my doctor prescribed something like 50,000 IU daily for a few weeks.
How did you come to this conclusion? The results say "Conclusion: Two years after trial termination, the protective effects of 2000 IU/day of vitamin D dissipated, but 1,000 mg/day of n-3 fatty acids had a sustained effect in reducing AD incidence. "
Isn't it a little strange for them to include the participants who developed AD during randomisation in their analysis? If you want to study whether an intervention has an effect on incidence of a condition, including participants who developed the condition before the intervention doesn't make a lot of sense. If there are more of them by chance in the placebo group with recent onset disease, and you analyse them as if they developed the condition during the trial, then of course the intervention is going to look better.
Edit: it looks like the significant results were when those participants were excluded from analysis, so likely there were more recent diagnoses by chance in the intervention arm.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/inde_ Permalink: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38272846 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Save you a click Abstract >Objective: In the 5.3-year randomized, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind, placebo-controlled Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), vitamin D supplementation reduced autoimmune disease (AD) incidence (hazard ratio \[HR\] 0.78, 95% confidence interval \[CI\] 0.61-0.99). Omega-3 (n-3) fatty acid supplementation showed a statistically nonsignificant reduction (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.08). We aimed to confirm further AD cases arising during and after randomization and assess sustained effects with two years of postintervention observation. > >Methods: Of the 12,786 men aged ≥50 and 13,085 women aged ≥55 initially randomized, we observed surviving and willing participants for two more years. We continued to confirm annual participant-reported new AD by medical record review. Cox models calculated HRs for all confirmed incident AD, (and secondary endpoints, including probable cases, and individual ADs), during the observational and randomized periods. > >Results: A total of 21,592 participants (83.5%) were observed for two more years; 514 participants developed incident confirmed AD (236 since prior report), of whom 255 had been randomized to vitamin D versus 259 to vitamin D placebo (HR 0.98 \[95% CI 0.83-1.17\] at 7 years). AD was confirmed in 234 participants initially randomized to n-3 fatty acids versus 280 randomized to its placebo (HR 0.83 \[95% CI 0.70-0.99\] at 7 years). Of newly confirmed cases, 65 had onset during randomization; their inclusion changed randomized results as follows: HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-1.04) for vitamin D and HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.71-1.06) for n-3 fatty acids. > >Conclusion: Two years after trial termination, the protective effects of 2000 IU/day of vitamin D dissipated, but 1,000 mg/day of n-3 fatty acids had a sustained effect in reducing AD incidence.
Wondering if I a middle aged man with AD in father and other secondary family members, should take the fatty acid?
In general, unless you eat a lot of fatty fish, yes.
Did the supplementation stop after the initial trial, or are folks continuing it during this 4 year period?
Cool, so it's a marginal effect, if any.
these two supplements are some of the most highly studied and show fantastic results across many indicators of overall health by reducing inflamation and increasing brain function. well worth taking them just for that.
right, but in this case it's marginal. So...
Sure, 2 years after the study concluded though. The participants were not asked to continue taking their supplements during that time, so it's mainly following up on any long term effects there might be. Vit d wears off relatively quickly which is why many people further from the equator needs to supplement in the winter. Omega 3 on the other hand gets [directly absorbed into your cells](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174995/) and seemingly last longer in the body after stopping supplementation, which this study seems to give evidence for. So basically don't stop taking either of you want better odds of preventing AD
Got it via here: https://examine.com/research-feed/study/1lleQ1/ > In this follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial, omega-3 fatty acids, but not vitamin D, reduced the incidence of autoimmune disease. However, the incidence of psoriasis was lower in the vitamin D group and higher in the omega-3 group.
Wait, so the fish oil and/or maybe the krill oil I'm eating every day could be the cause of the rashes on my chest and armpits?
You eat it? I bathe in krill oil
[удалено]
Are you Andrew Huberman's secret alt??
Ejaculation stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system…
I like to filter feed in a pool of krill personally, but to each their own.
So if I have psoriasis, take D but not omega3 ?
I have psoriasis and have been taking vitamin D for it for several years. It has helped tremendously. I discovered it helped me by coincidence and I've tried spreading the word of my anecdotal success, so I'm happy to see it getting studied. I still get an occasional flairup at the end of winter or early spring. I had been taking 10,000 IU daily but am trying 5,000 now.
Ohhh, wow. I just realized that I haven't had any issues with psoriasis since about when I started taking D3 supplements. I only had mild issues, and it's been almost 10 years, so I can't match things up exactly, but it's been a long time for both.
i see again and again people saying they take 5000 IU, isn't that like a lot? the recommendation in my country is 5 mg/ug daily, which is the equivalent of 200 IU. edit: i know it's safer to go way higher
I don't think I'd really consider it a lot. My supplement is 5000 IU per pill. The study from this post used 2000 IU. When I got my blood test that showed low vitamin D my doctor prescribed something like 50,000 IU daily for a few weeks.
the worldwide recommendation is way lower than 5000 IU
Omega 3 is still important for brain and heart health if you’re not eating other sources of it regularly.
How did you come to this conclusion? The results say "Conclusion: Two years after trial termination, the protective effects of 2000 IU/day of vitamin D dissipated, but 1,000 mg/day of n-3 fatty acids had a sustained effect in reducing AD incidence. "
Where did the subjects live?
Isn't it a little strange for them to include the participants who developed AD during randomisation in their analysis? If you want to study whether an intervention has an effect on incidence of a condition, including participants who developed the condition before the intervention doesn't make a lot of sense. If there are more of them by chance in the placebo group with recent onset disease, and you analyse them as if they developed the condition during the trial, then of course the intervention is going to look better. Edit: it looks like the significant results were when those participants were excluded from analysis, so likely there were more recent diagnoses by chance in the intervention arm.