Vitamin D deficiency → reduced fitness?

25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels and the Risk of Mortality in the General Population:

In cross-sectional multivariate analyses, increasing age, female sex, nonwhite race/ethnicity, diabetes, current smoking, and higher body mass index were all independently associated with higher odds of 25(OH)D deficiency...while greater physical activity, vitamin D supplementation, and nonwinter season were inversely associated. During a median 8.7 years of follow-up, there were 1806 deaths, including 777 from CVD. In multivariate models (adjusted for baseline demographics, season, and traditional and novel CVD risk factors), compared with the highest quartile, being in the lowest quartile...was associated with a 26% increased rate of all-cause mortality...and a population attributable risk of 3.1%. The adjusted models of CVD and cancer mortality revealed a higher risk, which was not statistically significant....

ScienceDaily, Low Vitamin D Levels Pose Large Threat To Health; Overall 26 Percent Increased Risk Of Death. Death due to ateriosclerosis probably isn't the strongest evolutionary force; most people who die of heart disease are past reproductive peak. But, it is noted in this, and other, research that Vitamin D levels seem to have a global influence on fitness, probably mediated through immune robusticity.

Related: Evolution of human skin color.

Tags

More like this

Or perhaps the people who exercise do so outside and get more sunlight.

By Propter Doc (not verified) on 13 Aug 2008 #permalink

Interesting; here it says VitD deficiency might be involved in depression:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/depression.shtml

I recently have written about the survival of depression (and the reason for it) the effect of VitD sheds another light on it.

Ta-daaa; sun officially is the natural cure for depression! Now I really can tell why one of the highest suicidal rate is in Copenhagen.

......The adjusted models of CVD and cancer mortality revealed a higher risk, which was not statistically significant....

Hmm. Seems to me my stats prof, way back when, told us that if it isn't statistically significant you can't make valid claims of things like 'higher risk'.