Garbage. We simply DO NOT KNOW what the "adequate level" of Vitamin D really is. New research indicates higher than currently recommended.
"I point this out because you described people getting their vitamin D from spending tons of time in the sun outdoors--which obviously was not 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.
And those "top to toes" clothes certainly did NOT block all sunlight. One of my "hats" is spectroscopy, and I have had my nose repeatedly rubbed in the fact the photons are slippery little bastards, and WILL get where you don't think they possibly ever could.
"Photosynthesis produces what you need, no more (because of biofeedback mechanisms, I think)."
You think??
"Really? It's not that much of an exaggeration. Have you ever picked up a multivitamin supplement and looked at how much some of the vitamins and minerals exceed the RDA?
So some pills have excessive levels. So what?? This does not prove that people as a whole get excessive levels, or take them.
"The tooth shrinkage is something I remember from genetics class. Apparently, the shrinkage has accelerated over the last 10,000 years.
LOL. The study is talking about 100,000 years, and the operate word is "might". Or did you simply not read the first paragraph.
"As far as other changes go, one only has to look up how long ago modern humans settled in various places and note how different they are from the "parent" groups to get an idea of how fast their evolution has occurred. These are not unanswerable questions."
All you can tell from that is that there has been a change in a particular direction, not that the change has been sufficient to overcome subtle deficiencies that the new statistical tools are finding.
"It's been 9 years since I got my PhD, so I don't have quite as much "field experience" as you...""
As I expected. Tell you what, get back to me in ten more years.
"I have not said a single thing which either is not verifiable (I verify with Google before I post), or which is not implicit in the principles of toxicology and/or biochemistry."
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.
And again, your arguments are NOT convincing. There is simply too much epidemiological evidence piling up that higher than current levels of Vitamin D are necessary for optimal health.
As I originally said, I eat a healthy diet (lots of multi-colored veggies), yet my blood "D" levels are abysmally low. So obviously I am NOT getting enough sunlight OR supplements according to the hard physical evidence of bloodwork.
I don't think that a diet consisting solely of fish livers and mackerel is one I could stand (or survive on).
So I'll stick to my supplements, thank you. If I could even get the blood levels up to 25 I'd be happy.
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.