Supplement evidence

001 / 575Vitamin

Vitamin D

View my plan →

The short answer

Correcting deficiency and supporting bone health when intake or status is inadequate.

Evidence and scope: Conditional or population-specific
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Routine supplementation in vitamin-D-replete adults has not consistently prevented fractures, falls, cancer, or longer-life outcomes.
Before deciding: Excess can cause hypercalcemia and kidney injury; avoid megadoses without clinical monitoring.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Meeting usual needs600–800 IU/day

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

Confirmed deficiencyClinician-directed; often higher and time-limited

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFat-soluble / lipid-based

Fat-soluble or lipid-based. Absorption generally improves with a meal containing fat.

How it is commonly taken

Take with a meal containing fat.

Do not combine casually

Avoid combining high-dose vitamin D with calcium without monitoring; thiazide diuretics and kidney disease require review.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

5research papers in this ledger

2unique primary studies represented

47,186unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2023

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 37011645 · ACTRN12613000743763

The effect of monthly vitamin D supplementation on fractures

No statistically clear overall fracture reduction was demonstrated; the authors called for more research on a possible time-dependent effect.

Published: 2023Duration: Up to 5 yearsn=21,315 participants · counted once

Study design and methods

Design: Tertiary outcome analysis of the D-Health randomized trial
Population: Australian adults aged 60–84
Intervention: Vitamin D₃ 60,000 IU/month versus placebo
Outcome: Total and site-specific fractures

Study period: 2014–2020

Open research record ↗

2023

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 37380191 · ACTRN12613000743763

Vitamin D supplementation and major cardiovascular events: D-Health randomised controlled trial

The point estimate favored vitamin D, but the confidence interval included no effect; subgroup findings require confirmation.

Published: 2023Duration: Up to 5 yearsn=21,315 participants · counted once

Study design and methods

Design: Secondary outcome analysis of the D-Health randomized trial
Population: Australian adults aged 60–84
Intervention: Vitamin D₃ 60,000 IU/month versus placebo
Outcome: Major cardiovascular events

Study period: 2014–2020

Open research record ↗

2022

Does not support the tested claimPMID 35939577 · NCT01169259

Supplemental Vitamin D and Incident Fractures in Midlife and Older Adults

Supplementation did not significantly reduce total, nonvertebral, or hip fractures.

Published: 2022Duration: Median 5.3 yearsn=25,871 participants · counted once

Study design and methods

Design: Prespecified ancillary analysis of the VITAL randomized trial
Population: Midlife and older U.S. adults not selected for vitamin D deficiency
Intervention: Vitamin D₃ 2,000 IU/day versus placebo
Outcome: Incident fractures

Open research record ↗

2022

Does not support the tested claimPMID 35026158 · ACTRN12613000743763

The D-Health Trial: a randomised controlled trial of the effect of vitamin D on mortality

Monthly vitamin D did not reduce all-cause mortality.

Published: 2022Duration: Median 5.7 yearsn=21,315 participants · counted once

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Population: Australian adults aged 60–84, not screened for deficiency
Intervention: Vitamin D₃ 60,000 IU/month versus placebo
Outcome: All-cause mortality

Study period: 2014–2020

Open research record ↗

2019

Does not support the tested claimPMID 30415629 · NCT01169259

Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease

Vitamin D did not lower either primary endpoint in this largely unscreened population.

Published: 2019Duration: Median 5.3 yearsn=25,871 participants · counted once

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Population: Generally healthy U.S. adults: men 50+ and women 55+
Intervention: Vitamin D₃ 2,000 IU/day versus placebo
Outcome: Invasive cancer and major cardiovascular events

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence8,754 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewNIH Office of Dietary Supplements Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.