PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 22, 2026Medicine0 citationsOpen Access

Effects of different vitamin D supplements on body fat distribution and glucolipid metabolism in patients with obesity-associated metabolic syndrome: A meta-analysis

View Full Paper
QHQin HuangJZJidong ZhanYGYuan Gui

Key Points

  • This meta-analysis examines the impact of different vitamin D supplements on body fat distribution and metabolic health in individuals with obesity-associated metabolic syndrome.
  • Searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials on vitamin D in obesity-related metabolic disorder.
  • Included studies evaluated vitamin D2, D3, or active vitamin D against placebo or low-dose vitamin D.
  • Analyzed primary outcomes focusing on visceral and subcutaneous fat, and secondary outcomes like insulin resistance and lipid profiles.
  • Vitamin D3 and active vitamin D significantly reduced visceral fat compared to vitamin D2.
  • Both D3 and active D improved fasting glucose and insulin resistance measures.
  • Higher doses (≥2000 IU/d) and longer interventions (≥6 months) were particularly beneficial, especially for those with low baseline vitamin D levels.

Abstract

Background: Obesity-associated metabolic syndrome (MetS) is characterized by abdominal adiposity, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent in obesity, and supplementation has been hypothesized to modulate body fat distribution and glucolipid metabolism. This meta-analysis compared the metabolic effects of different vitamin D formulations in patients with obesity-associated MetS. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI were searched from inception to the search date. Randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with obesity and/or MetS and evaluating vitamin D2, vitamin D3, or active vitamin D versus placebo/no intervention/low-dose vitamin D for ≥8 weeks were included. Primary outcomes were visceral and subcutaneous fat indices; secondary outcomes included fasting glucose, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, and lipid parameters. Effect sizes were pooled as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 . Results: Fifty randomized controlled trials were included. Vitamin D3 and active vitamin D reduced visceral adiposity (SMD −0.35, 95% CI: −0.50 to −0.20; and −0.40, 95% CI: −0.60 to −0.20; I 2 = 42%), whereas vitamin D2 showed no significant effect (SMD −0.10, 95% CI: −0.25 to 0.05). Vitamin D3 and active vitamin D improved fasting glucose (MD −0.30 and −0.35 mmol/L) and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (SMD −0.40 and −0.45), and lowered LDL (MD −0.30 and −0.25 mmol/L). Benefits were greater with ≥2000 IU/d, intervention duration ≥6 months, and baseline 25(OH)D <20 ng/mL. The Egger test did not indicate significant publication bias ( P = .12). Conclusions: In obesity-associated MetS, vitamin D3 and active vitamin D, particularly at higher doses and longer durations, are associated with reductions in visceral fat and improvements in glycemic control, insulin resistance, and selected lipid indices; vitamin D2 appears less effective.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Huang et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699a9da0482488d673cd3983https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000047436
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper