Replies

Garbage. We simply DO NOT KNOW what the "adequate level" of Vitamin D really is. New research indicates higher than currently recommended.

No, we don't know what the "adequate level" is, nor will we likely ever know. And that's true for any mineral or vitamin. There will never be a fully defined diet; humans are too genetically diverse, and the concept of a "defined" diet is far too nebulous. That is why the RDA is determined in much the same way as exposure limits for radiation or toxins: it includes a buffer zone. Also, I don't know how many "studies" you look at; I look at them every day. They are, at best, limited, and tend to make conclusions that really aren't supported by the data. If you went to the link of the article that begins this thread, the experts who came out with the new recommendations said essentially the same thing about the reliability of studies (and they reviewed over 1,000 of them). In any case, there clearly is not an epidemic of malnutrition caused by lack of essential nutrients; we'd be bombarded with news about it if that were the case.

That is exactly the case. People got FAR more sunlight even 75 years ago than we do today. People "covered up to the neck" IN PUBLIC. what went on when "not in public" is another story. And a farmer in the sun from dawn to dark even wearing a longsleeve shirt and long pants got FAR more sunlight than pretty much anyone does today (they called'em "rednecks" for a reason). And his wife out working alongside him did too, despite the long dress and bonnet.

Again, there is no evidence that they got more sunlight then than today. They made efforts to shield themselves from direct sunlight. And are you trying to say that clothes today are UV-opaque in a way they weren't back then? I don't buy that. I've also observed that most people do go outside quite frequently, even in cold snowy wintery places. They have to, if they work.

So some pills have excessive levels. So what?? This does not prove that people as a whole get excessive levels, or take them.

No, it just means that people who pop pills daily for their health are getting excessive levels. There are few studies that really look into the long term effects. Since my background is toxicology, it goes against everything I was taught to just start consuming large amounts of any bioactive substance willy-nilly. The dose makes the poison, and all that.

LOL. The study is talking about 100,000 years, and the operate word is "might". Or did you simply not read the first paragraph.

You should have read the second paragraph.

"Now anthropologists at the University of Michigan have produced strong evidence identifying the onset of this evolutionary trend, establishing the rates of size reduction and showing that in the last 10,000 years tooth size on average has been shrinking at twice the rate it had been for the previous 90,000 years."

As I expected. Tell you what, get back to me in ten more years.

I'll retire in ten years. I may not have had my PhD as long as you, but I'm not actually that much younger than you. I seriously doubt that my scientific philosophy is going to change significantly in that time; if reading hundreds (thousands?) of papers so far hasn't changed it, what is reading thousands more going to do? Or talking to hundreds more fellow scientists?

I think your issue is not that I am "so certain" of what I say; it is that I refuse to jump on the bandwagon with the believers of nutritional supplementation, and my reasoning is based on my science background. I actually don't usually participate in these discussions; they bear a strong resemblance to the creation threads (you don't get anywhere trying to argue with a creationist either).

Again LOL. Google ain't a science source either (bad grammar deliberate). Even "Google Scholar" is inadequate to actually understand what is going on. As I said, see me in ten years after you have learned that science is not nearly as certain as you seem to think.

Google Scholar? I think I've used it--once? But what regular Google gives me is tons of articles. The little 2-3 line intro gives me an idea of whether the article might give useful info, or whether it's someone trying to make a buck, or push an agenda. If the article contains useful info, typically it states its sources. I can then go to those sources if I want. Another option for me is PubMed. I don't use it as often; I find that going through Google actually gives me a more directed search with more useful results. And what I mean by "useful results" are the original research articles--like those published in JBC, Science, Journal of Cell Biology, etc.

Ironically, as many times as you've accused me of believing in absolute, settled science, I've actually said many times during this thread that it is NOT settled, and that there is still a TON we don't know. In fact, my first paragraph in this post reiterates that whole theme.

"That is why the RDA is determined in much the same way as exposure limits for radiation or toxins: it includes a buffer zone."

LOL. And THAT notion makes it worse. In a former life I minored in nuclear science (at that point the most sensitive method of inorganic analysis was neutron activition, which I was interested in), so I "do" know about radiation and exposure limits, and have studied more over the years. The limits are almost totally political and unrelated to any real science. Look up "radiation hormesis".

And I got my PhD just about the time the enviromental movement was picking up steam, and have watched the "sausage making" process of seeing the levels set for enviromental "toxins". Yet more "political" science.

"Again, there is no evidence that they got more sunlight then than today. They made efforts to shield themselves from direct sunlight. And are you trying to say that clothes today are UV-opaque in a way they weren't back then? I don't buy that."

No, I'm saying that clothes, both then and now, were NOT UV-opaque, but that those wearing the clothes spent far more time in the sun that those of today. We simply do not know what our ancestors UV photosynthetic levels might have been. All we can positively say is that the amount of clothing they wore was sufficient to prevent sunburn and some tanning.

I suspect we could probably come close if some prof somewhere were to do a study on the Amish, or in one of the "re-enactment" villages, in which past lifestyles are acted out. But neither of us can legitimately make a dogmatic statement about their level of "D" photosynthesis, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DATA, and your supposition about "hiding from the sun" is just that.....a supposition.

"Since my background is toxicology, it goes against everything I was taught to just start consuming large amounts of any bioactive substance willy-nilly.

And what makes you think people do that?? "I" certainly haven't done so. My increase in Vitamin D supplementation has been based completely on a series of blood tests over time. If it's so damned easy to get a "normal" blood level by diet, I wish to hell you'd tell me how to do it, because "I" have not succeeded in doing so. And in fact even WITH consumption of 4000 IU/day of Vitamin D (and yes, it is the correct form), my blood levels are STILL < 20.

"The dose makes the poison, and all that."

OK, what is the toxic level for Vitamin D??

"You should have read the second paragraph."

I read the whole article. I also note that the scientist who actually did the research was a lot less dogmatic about the reliability of his research than you are.

"I think your issue is not that I am "so certain" of what I say; it is that I refuse to jump on the bandwagon with the believers of nutritional supplementation, and my reasoning is based on my science background."

No, my problem is that you flatly state that anyone can get an adequate level of Vitamin D from diet alone. I know from my own experience that that is baloney. I can't get my levels up much even WITH supplementation, AND a pretty healthy diet.