Posted on 01/07/2010 3:52:58 AM PST by decimon
The traditional “Top Ten Breakthroughs of the Decade” lists have been appearing in science-related publications. One breakthrough, however, is conspicuously missing from every list I’ve seen so far. I’m talking about the new understanding of the role and proper dosage of the sunshine vitamin D.
The “scientific consensus” that has held sway for four decades regarding both exposure to the sun and vitamin D has collapsed. What has emerged in place of the old “settled science” is the knowledge that most people in America are seriously vitamin D deficient or insufficient. The same is true for Canada and Europe, and the implications are staggering.
>
It is so important biologically that early humans could manufacture D even during famines.
>
Holick says that from Los Angeles south, UVB is present in sunshine year round though it is blocked by clouds. Even the palest among us will be unable to get sufficient UVB from sunshine in more northern latitudes. In Boston, for example, UVB is blocked by the angle of the sun November through February. Edmonton, Canada, has no UVB mid-October through mid-April. Young people can store enough D during summer months to make it through the winter. Older people cannot.
>
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Something for everyone ping.
If that is so then it answers a question I've had.
women who are pregnant need lots of sunshine
The article gives a possible connection between autism and either pre-natal or early years deficiencies of vitamin D.
I had an email exchange with Holick a few weeks ago (I saw him make a presentation at the nephrology society meeting a few years ago) and he takes 2,000 of D3 a day.
I wonder where he lives, i.e., how much sunlight he gets.
“Young people can store enough D during summer months to make it through the winter. Older people cannot.”
Not true - and sitting in front of a computer screen or TV playing video games does not store sunshine. Northern latitudes do not get enough sun 9 months out of the year, period.
“I had an email exchange with Holick a few weeks ago (I saw him make a presentation at the nephrology society meeting a few years ago) and he takes 2,000 of D3 a day.”
I know doctors who themselves are taking up to 50,000 units of D3 a day, have been doing so for a couple years. (If you try this, get tested and avoid all calcium supplements)
I take 10,000 units a day, and recommend this as a minimum to clients.
I think I heard that they are finding a correlation between one’s lattitude and the incidence of osteoperosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17971526?dopt=Abstract
"BACKGROUND: Vitamin D has been hypothesized to reduce cancer mortality through its effects on incidence and/or survival. Epidemiologic studies of the association of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and the risk of cancer, however, have been largely limited to incident cancers at a few sites. METHODS: A total of 16,818 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey who were 17 years or older at enrollment were followed from 1988-1994 through 2000. Levels of serum 25(OH)D were measured at baseline by radioimmunoassay. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and total cancer mortality (in the entire population or according to race/ethnicity, sex, age, and retinol status) and mortality from specific cancers. Because serum was collected in the south in cooler months and the north in warmer months, we examined associations by collection season. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified 536 cancer deaths in 146,578 person-years. Total cancer mortality was unrelated to baseline vitamin D status in the entire population, men, women, non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Mexican Americans, and in persons younger than 70 or 70 years or older. We found no interaction between vitamin D and season or vitamin D and serum retinol. Colorectal cancer mortality was inversely related to serum 25(OH)D level, with levels 80 nmol/L or higher associated with a 72% risk reduction (95% confidence interval = 32% to 89%) compared with lower than 50 nmol/L, P(trend) = .02. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support an association between 25(OH)D and total cancer mortality, although there was an inverse relationship between 25(OH)D levels and colorectal cancer mortality."
“Sun exposure Most people meet their vitamin D needs through exposure to sunlight [5,31]. Ultraviolet (UV) B radiation with a wavelength of 290-315 nanometers penetrates uncovered skin and converts cutaneous 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3, which in turn becomes vitamin D3 [9,32,33]. Season, geographic latitude, time of day, cloud cover, smog, skin melanin content, and sunscreen are among the factors that affect UV radiation exposure and vitamin D synthesis [33]. The UV energy above 42 degrees north latitude (a line approximately between the northern border of California and Boston) is insufficient for cutaneous vitamin D synthesis from November through February [5]; in far northern latitudes, this reduced intensity lasts for up to 6 months. In the United States, latitudes below 34 degrees north (a line between Los Angeles and Columbia, South Carolina) allow for cutaneous production of vitamin D throughout the year [27].”
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp
This requires some thought. Even in the southern states there must be some months when little vitamin D can be made from sunlight.
Not true - and sitting in front of a computer screen or TV playing video games does not store sunshine.
Yeah, 'can' does not equal 'will.'
Bookmark for later.
That was my conclusion based on the NIH info in my other post to you. Either in fact or considering what most of us actually do.
And the other three months? Well, you need a day without clouds and to be outside in midday and not in the shade... IOW, most adults are probably not getting much beneficial sunlight at any time of year.
Another excellent source of information on Vitamin D and its relationship to health is The Vitamin D Council.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
Thanks.
There’s no magic pill but I think the need for a good level of vitamin D is well enough established.
I’ve quit trusting in medical knowledge about nutrition. There doesn’t seem to be any truly “settled science” underlying many (strongly held) assumptions. (My diabetic family still hasn’t heard about low carb diets from their doctors.)
They’ve been wrong about vitamin D and I’ll add another one, vitamin C. Vitamin C cures atherosclerosis and lowers LDL cholesterol. It doesn’t take megadoses either (total of 1000 mg will do). Many older people have symptoms of low grade scurvy and don’t know it. I didn’t and my doctor didn’t recognize it. Linus Pauling was right on this 40 years ago.
Southern AZ, high elevation (5000 feet), average an hour a day outside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.