4.7 Article

Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on C-peptide and 25-hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations at 3 and 6 Months

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep10411

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [U01CA138962]
  2. Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program [PC081669]
  3. American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award
  4. Pharmavite LLC (Mission Hill, CA)
  5. Harvard Catalyst \ The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Resources)
  6. Harvard Catalyst \ The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health) [UL1 TR001102]
  7. Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers
  8. Office of Dietary Supplements [3P50 CA127003]
  9. [K07CA148894]
  10. [K22CA126992]
  11. [5K05CA124415]
  12. [K24DK098311]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The link between African-Americans' disproportionate rates of diabetes, obesity and vitamin D deficiency may be marked by C-peptide as an indicator of insulin secretion. We hypothesize that vitamin D supplementation will increase C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion. During 3 winters from 2007-2010, 328 healthy African-Americans (median age, 51 years) living in Boston, MA were randomized into a 4-arm, double-blind trial for 3 months of placebo, 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU of vitamin D3. The differences in non-fasting C-peptide between baseline and 3 months were -0.44 ng/mL for those receiving placebo, -0.10 ng/mL for those receiving 1000 IU/d, 0 ng/mL for those receiving 2000 IU/d, 1.24 ng/mL for those receiving 4000 IU/d (C-peptide increased 0.42 ng/mL for each additional 1000 IU/d of vitamin D3, p < 0.001). Vitamin D supplementation increased C-peptide in overweight African-Americans and may be compatible with other recommendations for diabetes prevention and management including weight loss and increased physical activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据