Primary Research · 2000
Prediction of dietary iron absorption: an algorithm for calculating absorption and bioavailability
Hallberg and Hulthén · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2000
Key finding
Foundational model for non-heme iron absorption factoring vitamin C, phytates, tannins, and calcium interactions.
Abstract
PubMed · PMID 10799384 →BACKGROUND: Vitamin K has been associated with bone mineral density (BMD) and risk of hip fracture. The apolipoprotein (apo) E4 allele (APOE*E4) has been associated with bone fracture through a putative effect on vitamin K transport in blood. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the associations between vitamin K intake, apo E genotype, BMD, and hip fracture in a population-based cohort of elderly men and women. DESIGN: Dietary vitamin K intake was assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire in 335 men and 553 women (average age: 75.2 y) participating in the Framingham Heart Study in 1988-1989. Incidence of hip fractures was recorded from 1988 to 1995. BMD at the hip, spine, and arm was assessed on 2 separate occasions (1988-1989 and 1992-1993). Comparisons between apo E genotype and BMD were made relative to E4 allele status (at least 1 epsilon4 allele compared with no epsilon4 allele). RESULTS: Individuals in the highest quartile of vitamin K intake (median: 254 microg/d) had a significantly lower fully adjusted relative risk (0.35; 95% CI: 0. 13, 0.94) of hip fracture than did those in the lowest quartile of intake (median: 56 microg/d). There were no associations between vitamin K intake and BMD in either men or women. No association was found between the E4 allele and BMD, and there were no significant interactions between the E4 allele and phylloquinone intake and BMD or hip fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Low vitamin K intakes were associated with an increased incidence of hip fractures in this cohort of elderly men and women. Neither low vitamin K intake nor E4 allele status was associated with low BMD.
Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.
Read the full paper
Cited in 2 guides
Roundup
Best Multivitamin for Adults Over 50: What to Actually Look For
Over 50, nutrient absorption declines and specific needs change (B12, D, calcium, iron). Most senior multivitamins get it wrong. Here's what to check.
Guide
Iron Supplements Guide 2026: Evidence-Based & Ranked
Learn who needs iron supplements, what bloodwork to get, and which forms won’t wreck your stomach. Covers dosing science most doctors skip.
How to read a study like this
The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.
Who was studied, and do you resemble them?
Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.
What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?
A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.
How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.
'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.
Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?
Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.
Has anyone else replicated this?
Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.
Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?
Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.
About this page
Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.
The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →
Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.