Vitamin D May Help Slow Cellular Aging, Study Finds
A long-running study recently found that people who took daily vitamin D supplements for four years had slightly less shortening of their telomeres—a marker linked to cellular aging—than those who didn't.
While experts caution that the real-world health benefits remain unclear, the findings could shed light on the protective effects of vitamin D on specific aging-related diseases, the study authors noted.
The study, known as the VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), showed that people taking 2,000 IUs of vitamin D lost about 140 fewer base pairs from their telomeres than those taking a placebo—a small but statistically significant difference.
Telomeres are regions of DNA at the ends of chromosomes that naturally shorten with age. Shorter telomeres have been linked to health risks like heart disease and Alzheimer's disease.
The study findings suggest a promising role for vitamin D in slowing a pathway for biological aging and age-related chronic disease, Dr. JoAnn Manson, the study's coauthor and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in an email to The Epoch Times.
Although the results are encouraging, Manson says more research is needed. 'Replication of these results in another randomized trial will be important before changing general guidelines for vitamin D intake.'
Participants in the study started out with an average of 8,700 base pairs. Independent experts say the difference in loss of base pairs observed in the study is very small and falls within the range of normal fluctuation, meaning it may not translate into measurable real-world benefits.
'This 140-base-pair difference is like saying your hemoglobin went from 13.0 to 13.1,' said Dr. Mary Armanios, a professor of oncology and director of the Telomere Center at Johns Hopkins University. 'It trends in the right direction, but it doesn't carry clinical meaning.'
'It is only at the extremes that telomere length matters in aging,' she added.
More broadly, Armanios cautioned against thinking of telomeres as a simple aging clock. While very short telomeres can signal aging-related disease, unusually long ones are not always better and have been linked to higher cancer risk, according to 2023 research from her group published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
'Most people fall in a healthy middle range, and that's exactly where we want to be,' she said.
She also noted that the method used to measure telomere length—quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)—can be affected by lab factors like temperature and sample handling. These variables can make small differences unreliable. Among telomere testing methods, qPCR is the least reproducible.
While some experts urge caution in interpreting the telomere data, Manson said the new findings align with earlier VITAL results. Those results showed that vitamin D reduced inflammatory markers and lowered the risk of advanced cancers and autoimmune diseases by improving immune function.
Previous studies on vitamin D and telomere length have shown mixed results, including some that found no effect—or even a correlation between higher vitamin D levels and shorter telomeres.
Guidelines from the National Academy of Medicine recommend 600 IU per day for most adults and 800 IU for those over 70. The Endocrine Society also recommends supplements for older adults, people with prediabetes, and others at higher risk of deficiency.
'Most professional societies do not recommend routine vitamin D screening or supplementation for the general population,' said Manson.
However, certain groups—older adults, those with limited sun exposure or absorption issues such as Crohn's disease or celiac disease—may benefit from modest supplementation.
Other studies have suggested that vitamin D may promote healthy aging in older people.
The DO-HEALTH trial, a large European study in adults age 70 and older, found that daily 2,000 IU of vitamin D led to modest improvements in bone strength and infection rates—but not a reduction in new chronic diseases.
Longer-term observational research, like Germany's ESTHER study, linked higher vitamin D levels with lower rates of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. However, as a nonrandomized study, it couldn't rule out confounding lifestyle factors.
More large, diverse, and long-term trials are needed to determine who benefits most, at what dose, and for which outcomes.
Vitamin D metabolism is tightly regulated by the body, so only small to moderate amounts are needed to support health. A 2,000 IU daily dose is safe, as demonstrated in the five-year VITAL trial, with no increased risk of side effects.
Very large doses—over 10,000 IU per day—may lead to elevated calcium levels and potential toxicity, Manson noted.
For now, experts agree that this latest analysis does not mean everyone should start taking vitamin D supplements to slow aging.
'Vitamin D has known benefits, like for bone health,' Armanios said, 'but telomere length shouldn't be the main reason to start taking supplements.'
However, for those already taking vitamin D for bone, muscle, or immune support, the findings may offer one more reason to continue.
Vitamin D is found in fortified foods such as milk, cereal, and orange juice, and in fatty fish like salmon and sardines. Moderate sun exposure also helps the body make its own supply.
'Although it's easier to pop a pill,' said Armanios, 'being active outdoors and eating a healthy diet will do far more to support long-term health.'
Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition and public health at New York University, said the findings are intriguing but still require further confirmation and clarity on their clinical significance.
In the meantime, she encouraged people to spend time outdoors when possible, noting that 'sunlight on skin is the best source of vitamin D, far superior to supplements—even if just for a few minutes a day.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
6 days ago
- Gulf Insider
French Fries Versus Baked Potatoes
Potatoes have long had a bad rap for being high in carbs. A new study backs that concern—at least in part. That weekly french fry habit could be setting you up for diabetes decades down the road. Research found that eating french fries just three times a week may significantly raise Type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk—but, surprisingly, other potato preparations showed no increased risk at all. 'Our findings suggest it's not fair to put all potatoes in the same basket,' lead author Seyed Mohammad Mousavi told The Epoch Times. The study, led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, tracked more than 205,000 adults across three major U.S. observational health studies for 30 years. Participants regularly reported what they ate, along with details about their health and lifestyle. The study found that every three extra servings of potatoes per week was associated with a 5 percent increase in T2D risk. For french fries, that jump was even higher—20 percent per three servings. In contrast, eating baked, boiled, or mashed potatoes was not associated with an increased risk, suggesting that french fries are the main driver behind the link between potatoes and diabetes. French fries are often loaded with salt, which can raise blood pressure and trigger inflammation, increasing the risk of T2D. However, it's more than just the fat and salt content driving the diabetes risk. 'French fries are typically deep-fried at very high temperatures, which can produce harmful compounds,' Mousavi said. One such compound is acrylamide, formed during browning and linked to inflammation, insulin resistance, and blood vessel damage. 'Due to their deep-fried nature, they [fries] are also much higher in calories than baked or mashed potatoes,' said Melissa Mitri, a registered dietitian-nutritionist and owner of Melissa Mitri Nutrition, who was not involved in the study. The large amounts of oil used in frying also introduce trans fats, which further increase insulin resistance and inflammation. Combined with the high-temperature cooking that breaks down resistant starches, french fries become a perfect storm for blood sugar chaos. Even outside of french fries, people who ate seven or more servings of potatoes per week had a 12 percent higher risk of developing T2D. The risk rose with greater intake. While preparation plays a key role in how potatoes affect diabetes risk, it's worth noting they still have a high glycemic index, meaning they can rapidly raise blood sugar. Potatoes are a common source of carbohydrates, especially starch, which the body quickly breaks down into sugar. Because of this, eating potatoes can cause a sharp rise in blood sugar levels soon after a meal. Frequent blood sugar spikes force the pancreas to release more insulin repeatedly. Over time, this constant demand can cause insulin-producing cells to wear out or stop working properly. This contributes to insulin resistance and reduced insulin production—both key drivers of T2D. A potato's glycemic index, which ranks how quickly and how much foods raise blood sugar levels after eating, depends on how they're prepared. A higher glycemic diet is associated with an increased risk of developing T2D because the foods cause a rapid and significant rise in glucose levels. Mashed and boiled potatoes have higher glycemic indexes because cooking breaks down their structure and makes the starch easier to digest, leading to faster spikes in blood sugar. Deep frying also softens the starch inside, but the hot oil forms a crust with some resistant starch that slows digestion. The fat in fries also helps slow down how quickly sugar is absorbed, making their glycemic index a bit lower than mashed or instant potatoes. Using different food preparation methods can reduce potatoes' risks: Chill potatoes after cooking to increase their resistant starch content, slowing digestion and causing a more balanced rise in blood sugar. Bake or boil potatoes with the skin to retain more fiber and micronutrients. Boil, bake, or roast potatoes with minimal oil instead of frying to avoid added fats. Air fry potatoes to reduce the formation of harmful compounds produced by deep frying. Replacing potatoes with other carbohydrates reduced T2D risk. Swapping mashed, boiled, or baked potatoes for whole grains like pasta, bread, or farro lowered diabetes risk by 4 percent, while replacing french fries cut it by 19 percent. Substituting fries with whole grains, legumes, brown rice, or vegetables also reduced risk by 19 percent. The only swap that increased risk was white rice, which was linked to a 3 percent higher risk of T2D. This may be because white rice has a high glycemic index. 'White rice is stripped of fiber and nutrients, digests quickly, and causes sharper spikes in blood sugar,' Mousavi said. Whole grains have fiber that slows digestion and causes smaller blood sugar spikes. Perhaps most concerning, the study found that potato intake 12 to 20 years before diagnosis had the strongest association with diabetes risk—suggesting dietary choices in your 20s and 30s could determine your health in your 50s and 60s. Type 2 diabetes develops gradually, with insulin resistance and inflammation starting decades before symptoms appear. Even after adjusting for genetics, diet, and lifestyle, the link between french fries and diabetes remained strong. It was especially pronounced in people with higher body mass index (BMI) and in white participants. Mitri noted that excess weight is tied to inflammation. 'Someone with a higher BMI may have more difficulty responding to insulin,' she said, which can worsen insulin resistance. 'So for people with higher BMI, the same amount of potatoes may have a bigger impact on diabetes risk,' Mousavi said. The study also found that people who ate more potatoes often took in more calories, sugary drinks, and red meat, and were less physically active—factors that can raise diabetes risk. Also read: Saudi Arabia Sees New Jobs In Tech, Healthcare – Less Hiring In Construction
Gulf Insider
09-08-2025
- Gulf Insider
Most COVID Lung Abnormalities Heal Over Time, New Guidelines Confirm
Up to half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients show lung abnormalities on chest CT scans long after the acute infection is over. Many fear these changes mean lasting damage or worsening lung disease. However, new guidelines on treating long COVID confirm that lung abnormalities usually stabilize or even improve over time. 'The lungs are an organ, like skin, that are in constant contact with the environment. Because of that, they have a significant amount of stem cells in reserve and cells ready for healing,' Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, told The Epoch Times. Researchers found that in patients with lung damage following a COVID-19 infection, around 90 percent who continued to show lung abnormalities at the time of hospital discharge began to see improvements one to three years after infection. After a COVID-19 infection, roughly six in 100 people are estimated to develop persistent symptoms that can last for months to years—a condition known as long COVID. Common complaints include fatigue, joint and muscle aches, breathlessness, headaches, and difficulty concentrating, often called 'brain fog.' Symptoms typically improve over time—usually within four to nine months. Lung recovery tends to follow a similar trajectory. After infection, the lungs can show changes that resemble scarring—such as inflammation, collapsed air sacs, or temporary thickening of lung tissue—but these often heal on their own, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of Independent Medical Alliance, who is not one of the authors of the treatment guideline, told The Epoch Times. Based on Varon's clinical experience, most patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-related lung issues show improvement on scans and of symptoms within three to six months. However, he noted that some people, especially older adults or those who had severe illness, can have lingering lung changes or symptoms for a year or more. In COVID-19, the early lung damage is mostly due to inflammation, not permanent destruction, he said. Once the infection clears and inflammation goes down, the lungs can start to heal, absorbing fluid and repairing tissue, a process that can take several months. 'The body has the capacity to heal,' Dr. Pierre Kory, founder of Leading Edge Clinic, which treats long COVID patients, told The Epoch Times. COVID is typically an acute illness that heals over time rather than a chronic inflammatory condition—though in some cases, lingering lung inflammation or fibrosis can persist, he said. Many post-COVID lung changes seen in scans are not signs of permanent damage. They often reflect the lung's natural healing process after inflammation, similar to what's seen in other viral pneumonias or recovery from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Over time, these abnormalities often fade as the tissue repairs itself. Unlike chronic conditions such as interstitial lung disease, which involve ongoing triggers and progressive scarring, post-COVID changes are typically non-progressive. However, older patients who had been on mechanical ventilation or had severe or critical initial infection were more likely to have persistent lung changes, possibly due to the extent of initial lung injury. Chest CT scans often reveal lung changes long after COVID-19 infection that may look severe on imaging. These include ground glass opacities, which are hazy areas suggesting inflammation, or fibrous strands, thin bands of tissue left over from healing. However, many of these findings are residual effects from the infection, not signs of irreversible damage. 'Radiologic findings often lag behind clinical recovery and must be interpreted within a broader clinical framework,' said Varon, 'I have seen patients that have 'white lungs' for months and are doing well.' The disconnect between imaging and the actual patient condition may lead to confusion, unnecessary follow-up, or even overtreatment of long COVID. 'Some patients report persistent symptoms despite near-normal imaging,' Varon said, likely due to lingering viral effects or nervous system issues rather than actual lung damage. 'The key takeaway is that both lung damage and symptoms often improve—but not always in synchrony, and not always completely,' he said. That's why an individualized, symptom-based follow-up approach remains essential in managing long COVID patients. The new guidelines specifically address the tendency to over-interpret nonspecific findings as signs of progressive lung disease. The new consensus advises using CT only when clinically indicated, such as in patients with persistent or worsening respiratory symptoms. Mislabeling can also lead to costly treatments, repeated imaging, and even affect life insurance or disability claims. 'These medications can cost up to $60,000 per year—and patients may not really need them,' Varon said. The new guidelines suggest providers request follow-up chest CT only in patients whose respiratory symptoms persist or worsen three months after infection, with those symptoms lasting at least two months and with no other identifiable cause. They also recommend low-dose protocols for follow-up imaging to reduce radiation exposure. CT was invaluable early in the pandemic, especially when RT-PCR testing was unreliable, Varon said, but its continued use in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic long COVID patients is often unnecessary. The guidelines also urge radiologists to avoid using terms such as 'fibrosis' or 'interstitial lung disease,' which often imply progressive or permanent scarring, when describing nonspecific residual findings. The bigger concern, Kory said, is the tendency to over-label nonspecific findings, like ground-glass opacities or mild fibrotic changes, as definitive signs of fibrotic interstitial lung disease. 'I see this in my practice every single day,' he said. 'These interpretations can trigger unnecessary anxiety, inappropriate referrals, and misguided treatment plans.' Kory takes a symptom-focused approach, monitoring patients clinically and repeating imaging only if conditions worsen. 'My experience in general is that yes, most things in medicine are overused, including imaging,' he said.
Gulf Insider
18-07-2025
- Gulf Insider
The Hidden Risks In Common Breakfasts - And How To Fix Them
In much of the Western world, breakfast has become a rushed ritual of sugary cereals, flavored yogurts, and white toast. These habits may feel normal, but they're far from harmless. Many common breakfasts are marketed as healthy, but they don't always give the body what it needs to start the day. What we eat in the morning, or whether we eat at all, can influence everything from our mood and energy to long-term health. The biggest concerns with common breakfast items like cereals, pastries, granola bars, or instant oatmeal packets are that they're often high in sugar and low in protein and fiber. This combination can lead to blood sugar spikes and crashes, noted Mary Curristin, a nutritionist at ART Health Solutions, in an interview with The Epoch Times. An analysis published in May by U.S. investigators examined children's breakfast cereals released in the United States between 2010 and 2023. It found that these products have become higher in fat, sugar, and sodium, while their fiber and protein content has dropped. Just one serving of many cereals now contains more than 45 percent of the American Heart Association's recommended daily added sugar limit for kids. 'These types of breakfasts can cause an initial energy boost followed by a crash, leading to irritability, poor focus, and increased hunger or cravings,' said Curristin. Over time, eating high-sugar, ultra-processed breakfasts may raise the risk of insulin resistance, weight gain, and imbalances in the gut microbiome, she added. One reason people often choose sugary or processed breakfast items is because of fixed ideas about what breakfast is 'supposed' to look like. Many Americans view foods like toast, cereal, and pancakes as the only acceptable breakfast options, while more nutritious foods are typically eaten at lunch or dinner. This mindset can limit healthier choices at the start of the day. In addition, many popular breakfast foods became staples not because they're nutritious, but because of powerful advertising campaigns. Researchers also noted that in many other cultures, it's normal to eat foods at breakfast that Americans typically reserve for later meals. Some might wonder, why not just skip breakfast altogether? However, skipping breakfast may come with more downsides than you think. A large study of approximately 22,000 university students found that skipping breakfast, whether occasionally or regularly, was linked to a wide range of unhealthy behaviors. Students who skipped breakfast were more likely to eat fewer fruits and vegetables, drink more soft drinks, eat more fat and cholesterol, binge drink, and even smoke and gamble. The effect went beyond physical health. Breakfast skippers were also more likely to report depression, poor sleep, and worse academic performance. Why does breakfast matter so much? One reason may be its role in supporting mental clarity and emotional balance. After a night without food, your body's stored energy, or glycogen, is running low. Eating breakfast helps refill those stores, giving your brain the glucose it needs to function. That glucose also supports the production of tryptophan, which helps create serotonin—a brain chemical that influences mood, focus, and well-being. Another study showed that the more often people eat breakfast, the more weight they tend to lose—about 0.5 percent more for each additional day per week—even after adjusting for age, weight, and other factors. While eating breakfast alone may not lead to weight loss, it seems to support healthier habits like better eating patterns throughout the day. Part of the reason lies in how a healthy breakfast helps regulate blood sugar and appetite hormones, leading to greater feelings of fullness and fewer energy crashes later in the day. Eating more earlier and less later may also align better with the body's natural circadian rhythms. The same study found that women who ate a large breakfast lost more than twice as much weight as those who had their biggest meal at dinner, despite both groups eating the same number of calories. It's not just whether you eat breakfast that matters, but what's on your plate. Breakfasts that are higher in fiber and protein, like those with whole grains, eggs, or dairy, can help boost motivation, attention, and alertness throughout the day. It has been shown that people who eat fiber-rich breakfasts tend to score higher on the Mediterranean Diet Score—a measure of overall diet quality. Even small increases in breakfast fiber seem to shape healthier food choices later in the day. In fact, fiber intake at breakfast, especially around 1.5 grams, has been linked to better dinner quality. On the flip side, having as little as 10 grams of sugar at breakfast was associated with a drop in the nutritional quality of lunch. This means that even modest amounts of sugar in the morning can set off a day of poorer choices. So what does a healthy, balanced breakfast look like in real life? According to Curristin, the key is combining fiber-rich carbohydrates with protein and healthy fats. Some simple examples include: Greek yogurt with whole-grain oats, berries, and nuts Eggs on whole-grain toast with avocado Overnight oats with chia seeds and fruit For busy mornings, dietitian nutritionist Melissa Mroz-Planells recommends practical swaps for less nutritious options. Try baked oatmeal bars, breakfast burritos you can prep ahead, or smoothies packed with fruit, leafy greens, and a protein source. 'These are all easy grab-and-go options that offer better nutrition than a sugary pastry or processed bar,' she said. Mroz-Planells said even leftovers from dinner, like a vegetable stir-fry with tofu or a whole grain bowl with beans, can make a perfectly balanced and satisfying morning meal. If you go for cereal, Curristin suggested reading the label carefully: Choose cereals with at least 3 grams of fiber and less than 5 grams of sugar per serving. Look for whole grains, minimal additives, and ideally 3 to 5 grams of protein. Fortification with iron, B vitamins, and vitamin D is also a plus. 'It's important to aim for something nourishing, even if it's small,' Curristin said. 'Your first meal sets the tone for the day—focus on stable energy, satiety, and nutrient density.'
