VDC test kit slider

Study links low vitamin D levels to longer lifespan: Did we hear that correctly?

Posted on: November 8, 2012   by  Brant Cebulla


A new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that offspring who have parents living past 90 years of age (nonagenarians) have lower vitamin D levels than their spouses.

Noordam R et al. Levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in familial longevity: the Leiden Longevity Study. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2012.

You may have seen this study covered by the media in a few places:

While there may be a study or two that cast doubts on higher vitamin D levels, this is probably not one of them. We’ll explain.

The Leiden Longevity Study is a population of 421 families, consisting of nonagenarian (over the age of 90) white siblings, their offspring, and their offspring’s partners. Researchers gathered this study population to attempt to identify genetic and phenotypic (physical characteristics) markers related to longevity.

Families were only included if at least 2 nonagenarian siblings were still alive. Since it is difficult to match controls to people of this old of age, offspring were asked to participate because they have a propensity to reach that older age. And furthermore, researchers have the benefit of matching the offspring to spouses, who usually match well in age, BMI and exposures. Researchers are likely using these families to study and publish many findings, not just on vitamin D levels and vitamin D genetics.

In this study, the researchers, led by Raymond Noordam MSc and colleagues of Leiden University Medical Center, found that offspring of nonagenarians had a vitamin D level 25.7 ng/ml, while the offspring’s partners had levels of 27.4 ng/ml. When they excluded supplement users from the analysis, the levels remained nearly the same. When they adjusted for tanning exposure habits, the difference between the offspring and partners levels still stayed nearly the same.

Keep in mind that while the difference between 25.7 ng/ml and 27.4 ng/ml is very small, particularly at the individual level, this may be significant when examining a large population. The inference here is that even if you exclude supplement users and adjust for tanning, there may be something going on genetically. Something about the nonagenarians’ offspring’s’ genetics might cause their levels to be slightly lower than their spouses.

From here, we can’t infer much else, and it doesn’t squelch the idea that vitamin D reduces mortality and thus increases longevity. There is little in the study that suggests that low vitamin D levels are the key to offspring reaching their parent’s age. There is little in the study that suggests that the nonagenarians reached that age because they have lower vitamin D levels.

There is little to suggest that if you supplement with vitamin D, you reduce your chance of living ‘til the age of 90. There is little to suggest that if you sunbathe, you reduce your chance of living ‘til the age of 90.

There is little in the study that suggests that vitamin D levels are even central to longevity. It could well be the case that there is some other gene crucial to longevity that is merely associated with genes that disposes a person to have slightly lower vitamin D levels. In other words, if all offspring and all spouses supplemented with the same amount of vitamin D, there could still likely be a difference of 1-2 ng/ml between the two groups. And this study still very much leaves room for the possibility that both the offspring and spouse would be better off raising their vitamin D levels via supplementation or exposure.

In conclusion, if you took the study for face value, it is not offering much insight into vitamin D. Even if it had found the opposite, that offspring had slightly higher levels than their spouses, there still would be little to conclude with the same set of questions remaining. That being said, there are also a few flaws and assumptions in the study:

  1. The assay they used to measure 25OHD is no longer on the market due to lack of accuracy.
  2. If we did draw any conclusions, we are assuming that 25OHD status in offspring is closely correlated with their parents’ 25OHD levels.
  3. If we did draw any conclusions, we are assuming that genetics are more important in vitamin D than sun exposure, supplements and food, which we have reasonable evidence that this is not the case.

Again, this study does not contribute much to the literature on vitamin D and does not answer the question, what level is going to get me to the age of 90? And I don’t beleive the researchers are trying to answer that question either. The study is interesting, but not insightful.

The best evidence to date that looks at mortality (the opposite of longevity) and the use of vitamin D supplementation in an elderly population was a systematic review published in the distinguished Cochrane Database. Professor Goran Bjelakovic and colleagues analyzed fifty randomized controlled trials and found that vitamin D3 supplementation decreases mortality in elderly women who are mainly in institutions and dependent care. We blog on that study here.

6 Responses to Study links low vitamin D levels to longer lifespan: Did we hear that correctly?

  1. Ian

    These sort of studies get media attention though. In addition I think they are also, disingenuously used in a meta-analysis of the value of vitamin D by Health authorities like our own in NZ to keep the status quo established by the IOM.

    Thank you, Brant for your analysis.

  2. [email protected]

    “If you have inherited longevity genes you can take 200 IU less vitamin D”

    That is just one of many possible other interpretations of the data from that poor study


  3. Dan

    Was the age of nonagenarians at time of offspring conception controlled for? We now know mRNA can be inherited so could this impact offspring ability to produce vitamin d?

    • Brant Cebulla

      I don’t believe they did, Dan.

  4. [email protected]

    Once again, Vitamin D is one of the most important things you can give your body. even after thirty years of independent studies from all over the world, the results were the same.

  5. Ian

    Aside from all the other critical comments of this paper I am still not sure that you can accurately correlate 25(OH)vitamin D with 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D in all population groups. I know that a lot of research is founded on the assumption of a high correlation. When the postulate is that vitamin D levels negatively influence longevity this becomes more important. Which vitamin D levels? The correlation coefficient for the relationship in the elderly is r=.26 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16844035). Not high enough for me to accept that the null hypothesis (vitamin D level is positively correlated with longevity) can be rejected.

    This is another variable uncontrolled for in this study.

Test Your Vitamin D Levels at Home!

Our in-home vitamin D test kit is easy, affordable, and an accurate way to find out your Vitamin D status.

order NOW

We need your help!

We're spreading awareness on Vitamin D Deficiency
Donate NOW
Latest Articles
What is the relationship between vitamin D and childhood UTIs?

A new study suggests vitamin D may protect against UTIs among children by upregulating their own naturally occurring antimicrobial peptides.

Weekly Newsletter

Our Sponsors

December 21st is DDAY. Click here to celebrate the day with us!