Sunshine, Vitamin D, and Death by Scientific Consensus
Melanoma, on the other hand, is the deadly skin cancer that most people erroneously relate to sunshine. Melanomas, however, do not tend to occur on parts of the body that get direct sunlight. This not only argues against the notion that sunshine directly causes them, it makes them less likely to be detected. The bottom line, which is worth repeating, is that the incidence of truly nasty melanoma skin cancers goes down significantly with sensible exposure to UVB-containing sunshine or with vitamin D3 supplementation. Other effects of vitamin D improve skin tone in general.
This is not the end of the list, though. The big killers and most expensive diseases respond similarly to adequate D. I’m talking about hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. So do type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes (to a lesser extent), rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, autoimmune diseases, and apparently even viral diseases such as H1N1 and AIDS.
I predict that other diseases will also be linked to vitamin D insufficiencies as more studies are performed. Even conditions such as autism and schizophrenia may be directly related to prenatal or infantile vitamin D deficiency.
Nevertheless, the NIH’s current recommended dosage for vitamin D supplementation remains basically unchanged since it was established to prevent rickets. In fact, the maximum safe dosage of vitamin D3, the preferred dietary form, is currently 2000IU. This is extremely unfortunate because it takes about a hundred IU to raise serum blood levels by 1 ng/ml in a healthy adult. To get into the optimal range, 40 to 60 ng/ml, one would therefore have to take 4000 IU daily. It would take even more if you were obese, are taking certain medications, or have one of a number of medical conditions that degrade or prevent the creation of usable D. The evidence, incidentally, is that 10,000IU is entirely safe.
I said above, half-jokingly, that it is too bad sunshine isn’t patentable. The reason the statement is somewhat true is that no one has a direct financial interest in pushing back against those who have maligned sunshine. Manufacturers of sunscreen contributed significantly to the impression that the sun’s rays were always damaging. This overuse of sunscreen, in fact, has been a major contributor to vitamin D deficiency. Of course, excessive sun exposure is bad. It is clear that sun burns, in particular, are very detrimental to skin health.
In moderation, however, it is a virtual panacea. Holick, incidentally, is a strong proponent of sunscreen use. He recommends using it on face and hands, which are constantly exposed to sunshine and on any part of the body exposed to sun after moderate, “sensible” exposure.
Supplement manufacturers would have an interest in promoting information about vitamin D deficiencies. They, however, are prevented from recommending optimal doses because of current NIH guidelines.
The anti-sunshine movement was bolstered significantly when the environmental movement began to blame thinning of the ozone layer on CFCs. This has never been proven, primarily because natural sources of ozone depleting gases far outweigh the man-made. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, points out that tropospheric chlorine (volcanoes, ocean spray, etc.) concentration is four to five orders of magnitude greater than than the CFCs that were blamed on ozone thinning.
Regardless, environmental alarmists focused specifically on the ozone layer’s blockage of ultraviolet B, the only part of the spectrum that creates vitamin D. UVB may, in fact, contribute to cataract formation, which is why you should wear sunglasses that block ultraviolet light. Environmentalists, however, exploited the connection to create a scenario of widespread blindness.
Al Gore’s 1992 book Earth in the Balance concluded that, thanks to the Antarctic ozone hole, “hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fisherman catch blind salmon.” The blind rabbits he referred to, incidentally, had previously been explained by Chilean authorities as the result of a pink eye epidemic.
I have been taking 4000 IU daily for about a month and feel so much better. I know I should have my blood checked to determine the correct amount that needs to be taken, but I cannot begin to tell you the difference.
I am a guy that lives in KC and works indoors all day. I rarely go out in the sunshine.
I’ll keep it at 4000 IU for a while and may increase it to 5000 IU daily depending on the results of the blood work.
Good article!
I had the good fortune to attend a lecture by Dr Holick a couple of years ago. Pretty good stuff, all around. I’ve sent many people to his website, where a video lecture can be watched, and the physicians I work with who attended his lecture have since incorporated regular vitamin D testing in their practices, with some rather shocking findings as to the pervasiveness of vitamin D deficiency.
Wow. Very interesting… no, awesome. Thank you.
I especially liked the “go outside and get some sun” identification. More wisdom than we knew…
… crazy as it sounds, I’ve often wondered about the benefits of fasting, as they did in old times. I have inclinations that it may provide certain mental, and physical, benefits to society – not that I’m a proponant or anything. Though I will say that if one ever wanted to know what was really important in life, just go without food for a few days.
Shame about Prof. Holick – yet he can wear it as a medallion of honor and courage.
Oh, and the info about the polar distribution of UVB was eye opening. I suppose this is due to the scattering cross-section (wavelength) and additional attentuated path length at inclination… but that can’t be more than 2x (E^-alpha*2L) so… I guess that means not much gets through as it is (alpha is large).
This might go far into explaining the widely different health histories of my wife and myself. I am of Irish-German descent (i.e. nearly no melanin), my wife is from Bengal (very dark), our lifestyles are similar and we eat nearly the same foods. I have missed two days of work in the last thirty years while she has been hospitalised for many (widely varied) complaints over the years. I understand that personal genetics has a lot to do with health but this would seem to be the big difference.
Off to the vitamin store!
I have always “charged up” my batteries with direct exposure to sunlight on the skin.
I have understood that about 10 minutes per day is sufficient.
Optimal vitamin D serum blood levels, attained through sunlight or supplementation.
I’ve also understood that the body making Vitamin D in the skin as a function of direct exposure to sunlight is a more useful form of the vitamin (the “prohormone”) than that ingested through supplements.
In the early 1900s, it was demonstrated that summer midday sunshine prevented rickets.
Swathing onself in the burkha (particularly in low light climes like northern England) is extraordinarily unhealthy. One of the lesser mentioned downsides of that garb.
Thanks for a fascinating article. I have an autoimmune disease that requires me to strictly avoid sunlight. I wear a 30 SPF sunscreen every day, year round, on all the exposed parts of my body. Now that I’m approaching middle age (okay, I’m actually middle aged), I’ve become concerned about my bone density due to family history, being Caucasian and having a petite build. I’ll be purchasing Vitamin D supplements on my next trip to the store.
Not only is it beneficial for you physically but EMOTIONALLY as well. Think about those who live in areas where there is little sunlight for prolonged periods of time. Think about those who work indoors under fake lighting for hours, days, years at a time. I had such a job. Large windowless office under a bank of glaring horrible lighting for so long. It was maddening to leave and walk outside into the sunlight knowing you had to leave it behind when you went back to work. My boss had little or no tolerance for making the work space “human friendly” and thought we could be programmed like robots to sit at a desk for 8 hours a day, nose to the grindstone, with no human contact necessary. It was as if we were in a work zoo, artificial environment, caged, and separated. The view of the outside and the lack of anything sunlit was the last straw for me. Was happy to leave and will never work like that again.
The imbalance of omega6 oils in the US diet also causes an epidemic of skin cancer (NewScientist). Omega-3 fatty acids, DHA and EPA, are essential to brain and nerve function. In cell membranes they enhance cell response (to insulin, neurotransmitters and other messengers), and facilitate repair when cells are damaged. Omega-6 fats contribute to membrane resistance, altering mood, insulin response, learning and cell repair in a negative way.
Some anthropologists believe the human brain would not have developed as it did without access to high levels of DHA found in fish and shellfish and to a lesser degree in wild game. Just two generations of high omega-6 and low omega-3 can lead to profound alterations in brain size and brain function in animals and probably in man. Other anthropologists believe that the human brain formed as it is today, large in proportion to body size, and that its capacity is being diminished as the diet becomes deficient in omega-3 fats. A relative omega-3 fatty acid deficiency can be created by an overabundance of omega-6 fats; a lack of omega-3 fats; alcohol consumption; or the consumption of trans-fats. All of these conditions have been dramatically increasing in occurrence in the US over the past 50 years.
The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in the U.S. diet is somewhere between 25-50:1. The ideal ratio is somewhere between 4:1-1:1.
Excellent reading: http://www.krispin.com/omega3.html
while ‘gosh yes, very good post’ would be a fast summary of my position, you should know that vitamin d has to be liver metabolized to get to the most active form.
I had a patient with ricketts–he had liver disease and couldn’t make enough of the good form. (And ! so did his daughter who never touched any alcohol….guess it’s a familial metabolism defect). In nearly all people, the cheap over the counter vitamin d is good enough, but in some, you need an expensive pre-liver-digested-highly active vitamin d. Simple (expensive) blood test to find out.
Oh, thin bones/fractures should be mentioned as the HUGE, EXPENSIVE !, epidemic that this helps (and maybe other chronic diseases).
Dr. Matt
Thanks Dr. Matt,
Yes, there’s a lot more to it; which is why I linked to Holick’s book and site. Thyroid conditions also seem to complicate the D picture significantly.
As for thin bones, this is very true. Holick’s work shows that people with higher serum D levels fall far less often than those with low levels. This is not only due to spontaneous breakage, muscle tone improves rather rapidly with sufficient D. This shouldn’t be a surprise as D is, in fact, a steroid hormone.
Patrick
A good article, but the writer should have avoided the temptation to blame “the government” for every ill. We do need a government and it sometimes proves useful. And good old capitalism exlpains some wrong turns too (as in the drive to sell sunscreen).
Science is indeed plagued by recurring episodes in which fashion overtakes scientific data (as in the craze about low-fat diets and the warnings against sun exposure) but this tendency is not restricted to tree-huggers or leftwing “governmentalists”. It is found in all political classes (for example, take the demonization of socialized health care in the right wing, in spite of good data showing that countries with socialized medicine enjoy higher standards of health than those living under the hotchpotch American system).
Hello Dr Omar,
We could easily derail this comment thread with numerous examples of both third-world health care conditions and third-world health care treatment in socialize medicine wonderlands like Canada, England, France, etc
Here’s one such a example from the UK .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2085772/Woman-23-died-cervical-cancer-doctors-said-young-smear-test.html
Here’s another such tale example from Canada … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0snFjLL-Lhs
Cheers
Dr. Omar, how dare you try to defend government? After all that the government has done to destroy private health care, you now try to claim that everything will be fixed if government just takes over?
My wife and I are currently trying to secure a health care plan that will fit the needs of our family, independent of any employer. As we attempt to do so, we run into barrier after barrier of government interventionism–government is resisting our efforts to be self-sufficient at every step of the way.
Yet you have the gall to claim that capitalism broke this system? Ick!
Very interesting article. I have always been a big believer in moderate UV exposure and try to make it a point, especially in winter, to get out for a walk during daylight for exposure. There is now no doubt in my mind not only is it good for the heart, but good for the head.
After a recent path to medical school, I found it fascinating that many ideas that were once considered “wife’s tales” have been proving true. Perhaps innately, mother does know best as I’m reminded of my own mother frequently saying, “Everything in moderation.”
As to diet and longevity, about the only conclusion I came to through my studies is the best, most healthy diet is to not concern ourselves so much about what we eat, but how much we consume.
I for one has long been advocating sun-tanning for health and that sun blocking creams cause cancer.
My daughter worked in Spain through the summer. She was persuaded to use high factor sun protectors on her face rather than just relying on a wide brimmed hat. On her return she, a girl who never had more that the occasional little zit, was disfigured (fortunately only temporarily) with the worst acne I have ever seen.
Whatever they put in that kak, it isn’t good for human skin.
Ian, They do make non-comedogenic sunscreen lotions that won’t cause breakouts. Or she might have had an allergic reaction to one of the ingredients? Try sunscreens with physical blocks like titanium dioxide, they work better and are less irritating. Look for Coppertone for Babies or try anything Neutrogena.
Here in Hobart, Tasmania, we’ve had a few immigrants from the Sudan in recent years. Official policy in most public schools is that children must wear wide-brimmed hats when outside at recess and lunchtime. Sudanese children, who already tend to wear more clothing than their paler contemporaries, have been developing rickets—which, at first, most doctors could not diagnose, since cases of rickets have not been encountered in Tasmania over the last half-century.
What does the State Government do? Say that if your skin is really dark you may play outside without a hat? No, that would be racist! Instead, the Government distributes vitamin D tablets to the Sudanese kids.
Islamic clothing requirements, especially for women, preclude getting any vitamin D from the sun at all. This affects boys too, because the mother doesn’t have the vitamin D during gestation.
I had the story on this back in 2007.
Bravo! This is not the only area the techno-fascists have controlled. When I first learned cardio-pulmonary-resuscitation, I was told the chest compressions ‘pumped’ oxygenated blood through the lungs to the brain. The procedure became ‘protocol’ and a seminar industry sprang up to make heroes out of busy-bodies nationwide. Politicians passed laws to make anyone working in the hospitality industry certified. Now, it is generally understood that defibrillation is effective and inexpensive defibrillators are now available. Chest compressions never did ‘pump oxygenated blood to the brain’. Imagine the liability ramifications, all the cases of CPR used when they should have been rolling to a defibrillator. They are slowly
and quietly changing the protocols in the light of ‘new studies’.
Twenty-five years ago I had trouble understanding the mechanics of CPR and asked a doctor who was the head of emergency medicine at a large Bay Area hospital. He told me, “It dosen’t work, no way, we defibrillate.” Science is in need of rationalization.
I moved to Canada from California (don’t ask), and found myself getting seriously depressed and lethargic, and regularly catching colds and flu’s, which I never had so much in my life. I was always very healthy and rarely sick while living in the states.
I recently went to the doctor and tests found I was very low in D3.
I have been taking D3 supplements now for months and have noticed the difference. The winters in Canada are horrid and debilitating. Very long, dark and depressing. If I could move back south, I would in a heartbeat. I believe it is dangerous to live up here, health-wise.
None-the-less, I always understood the importance of “sunshine” and run outside, even in winter here, to try to get as much as possible. But, even knowing that, I was dangerously low in D3.
Take note of this article, most people are not checked for D3 levels, and you wouldn’t know how low you might be.
Dr. Matt,
I’m hoping your prescribed calcitriol for that patient with rickets and hepatic failure. There are Vitamin D analogues that do not require in vivo conversion to a bioactive form.
Dr. Ali,
You’re full of it! Cite ONE example of foreign healthcare that is superior to that in the USA.
I live in Washington (not D.C. the other one)
We’ve been taking D3 since the first mention of N1H1 (Gasp) in Mexico.
No one in our fiamily has gotten a flu shot (and we don’t because they always make us sicker than any flu could) and none of us has gotten this epic swine flu either.
I’ll trust the D3 over the Government Approved preventitive any day.
jd
My doctor prescribed Vitamin D supplements for me a long time ago. Additionally, I make sure I get a sufficient amount of sunlight as long as the weather permits (southwest Ohio). If you work 9 to 5 in this part of the country, November to February is one long night.
The real breakthrough came when I retired. I no longer spent all the daylight hours cooped up in a windowless office. Instead, I was outdoors a lot more throughout the year, and the difference in my physical and mental health was remarkable. Make of that what you will (trading job satisfaction for retirement leisure time satisfaction), but I believe wholeheartedly that it was mainly the difference in exposure to daylight.
#11 Omar Ali: “for example, take the demonization of socialized health care in the right wing, in spite of good data showing that countries with socialized medicine enjoy higher standards of health than those living under the hotchpotch American system”
What “good data” are you talking about? Everything I have read is either a) selected and spun by proponents of nationalized health or b) very disturbing.
Dr. John Cannell’s website, vitamindcouncil.org, also has a ton of information on supplementing with vitamin D3. He also puts out a regular email letter summarizing his view of recent research that’s quite valuable.
I have personally decided to have my D3 levels checked in autumn and spring for several years running to see how much supplementation I require to maintain 60-70 ng/ml. It looks like it’s going to take about 5,000 IU in winter (Wisconsin) and as much as 1,000-2,000 IU in summer, even though I’m outside quite a bit in summer months. Unless you get the blood tests, you just won’t know whether you’re supplementing too much or not enough.
I have a relative that golfs a lot in shorts and hit almost 90 ng/ml with hardly any supplementing (400 IU in a multivitamin) whereas I was outside in shirtsleeves day after day and dropped from 50 to 39ng/ml over the summer. Everyone needs to find out for themselves what level of supplementation will tend to maintain blood levels in the range of 50-80ng/ml or so.
Also, a page on my website is devoted to answering some of the more common questions on vitamin D3 supplementation. http://ontrackreading.com/the-diet-piece/vitamin-d3-questions/
I had my vitamin D levels tests a month ago. In the words of my doctor, my levels were “severely depleted.” He has me on a massive weekly dosage regime. It may be entirely psychological, but I swear I feel better the first two days after that dose.
Between that and increasing my dosage of Prilosec, I feel much better.
22. Mike G:
What “good data” are you talking about? Everything I have read is either a) selected and spun by proponents of nationalized health or b) very disturbing.
Canadians like their health care system …until they get sick.
“In fact, the maximum safe dosage of vitamin D3, the preferred dietary form, is currently 2000IU… The evidence, incidentally, is that 10,000IU is entirely safe.”
This passage seems contradictary, and is therefore very confusing. Please explain.
I’m 44 and just had my physical. This was the first time I’ve had my vitamin D levels checked and it turned out I was very deficient. I’m on a twelve week regimen of 50,000 IU once a week (a prescription). I’ll get tested again after that and probably be put on normal supplements. I haven’t noticed any improvement in my health but it I thought it was fine to begin with.
I keep up on health news and the D deficiency epidemic was new to me. I’m fair skinned but live in the Northeast and work in an office. I don’t see much sun for 6 months of the year. I don’t drink much milk either. I don’t use much sunscreen unless I’m at the beach but I’ve always thought the NO SUN crowd was a bit extreme.
My Irish Mom always says “Everything in Moderation” and I think she’s right. A little coffee, a little sun, some wine, some vegetables and some exercise. She’s 77 and in amazing health, hopefully I’ll get her genes.
With coffee in the AM I drink a large (16 oz.) glass of the Tropicana OJ that has 25% of D3 per 8 oz….I’ll drink 2 glasses from now on.
Very interesting article.
Your two glasses of milk will give you a whopping 120-200 IUs of vitamin D. Ten minutes of exposure to UV light can give you well over 10,000 IUs. If vitamin D weren’t so important to your health it would not make so much, so quickly.
I’m happy to report that I went to my annual physical last Oct and my doctor asked me if I took vitamin D. So it seems that the info is getting out. I was already taking some and he suggested I double it. I did.
One of the reasons I started taking it was because I suffer from sleep problems and the long Idaho winters don’t help. I read an article somewhere about sleep disorders, Seasonal Affective Disorders, and a connection to vitamin D. I figured it was worth a shot to take and it has helped. My sleep problems haven’t disappeared but the frequency diminished enough for my wife and I take note of it.
I have been taking it now for about two years, long enough for a placebo effect to have worn off (I would think). Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it works for me!
PS: John MMM, my lifelong philosophy has been the flip side of “Everything in Moderation.” I’ve always taken the “Excess in Moderation” approach. A fella has to blow out the pipes, so to speak, every now and then.
Correlation is NOT causation. While the OBSERVATIONAL
Correlation is NOT causation and while the OBSERVATIONAL data point to the direction that vitamin D supplementation or sun exposure are beneficial, I am keeping some amount of skepticism until the prospective double blind studies are done. That being said, until proven non-beneficial, I am taking 4000 units/day.
29. gsarcs:
The Greeks, following Apollo, said “nothing to excess.” The Romans, following Horace, said, “All things in moderation.” Nothing and all things are excessive. I say. “moderation in moderation” because an occasional excess is fine.
A very excellent and accurate article, Patrick!
Also, another good example of how ‘concensus science’ and ‘peerreviewedlitichur’ impede the quest for knowledge in science.
Besides Dr. Holick’s website, the following are also excellent sources of information on the benefits of Vit. D.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
http://www.grassrootshealth.org
http://www.direct-ms.org
To understand why there is no rational basis for the current FDA recommended dosages for Vit. D, see the following:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/12/1541
“Vitamin D insufficiency: no recommended dietary allowance exists for this nutrient” by Reinhold Vieth and Donald Fraser
Dean, you asked me to explain, “In fact, the maximum safe dosage of vitamin D3, the preferred dietary form, is currently 2000IU… The evidence, incidentally, is that 10,000IU is entirely safe.”
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The maximum safe dose as currently established by the NIH is set currently at 2000IU. The research, however, indicates that it should be raised to 10,000IU. I expect, in fact, that it will be because the NIH has hinted that it knows the 2000IU number is obsolete.
“Science, rightly, is a process of discovery, not a set of established facts.” Amen. It is treated as religion by far too many.
Imagine! Reasonable amounts of sunshine and fresh air are good for us. What else will we discover next with our superior knowledge and modern understanding? Kind of reminds me of when actual research started being done to show that, yep, breast milk is best for babies, no matter how “scientifically advanced” our formula recipes. Wow. Go figure.
Science and research are extremely valuable things, no question, but a little dose of humility mixed with it once in a while is a good thing, too.
Give Your Immune System a Natural Super-Boost – Vitamin D, Colds the Flu and You
http://thenaturaladvocate.blogspot.com/2009/12/give-your-immune-system-super-boost.html
Would you rather choose the natural solution to Immune Heath, or do you prefer the government flu shot?
I remain skeptical. Mega-doses of Vitamin C were touted for a long time, even to the point that Nobel-winning Linus Pauling became an advocate. Yet, despite claims that C would significantly reduce a cold’s symptoms or duration, careful double-blind studies showed it had very little effect.
“Supposedly objective journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, refused to publish his exhaustively documented research — research now accepted as both accurate and pioneering.”
Are you saying NEJM has now published studies which confirm his ideas?
Without seeing what the NEJM’s objections were originally and examining the data Holick developed, WE can’t say who was right. Maybe that data really didn’t support his conclusion sufficiently.
From our perspective, this puts Vitamin D in the exact same position as “global warming”.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m only saying I personally need more evidence.
I think what Climategate has clearly shown us is that scientists are human and can fool themselves or give in to non-scientific influences. In addition, ALL scientific conclusions are provisional, i.e., X is true AS FAR AS WE KNOW.
Even further, the media and other advocates sometimes omit conditionals that scientists include with their conclusions.
On the other hand, reports that scientists are right rarely make the news, just like “dog bites man”.
Please, toss in a good word for Calcium increase too (especially for children) as vitamin D is essential for the body to absorb it.
Good job getting this info out. This summer I had debilitating joint and muscle pain that made everyday tasks difficult and periodically left me bedridden. My doctor checked for vitamin D deficiency (and thyroid function tests), and sure enough, my levels were extremely low. After about 1 month of D3, I started to feel much better – noticeably more energetic, and the aches and pains had subsided.
I’ve had melanoma once (more than 15 years without a recurrence, knock wood) and have had other sun damage issues with my skin (I’m a redhead who grew up in Florida). Consequently, I’ve used sun block on a daily basis for a long time. But I now recognize the need to get a bit more sun – unfortunately, I’m in the chilly Northeast, and won’t know what kind of change that sunshine will make until the spring.
Vitamin D deficiency was important news for me. Share this article – I know I will.
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
Albert Einstein
That’s a bogus quote.
The attribute may be bogus, but the quote itself is sound. Sometimes we get too caught up in who said what, rather than evaluate the quote itself to decide for ourselves if it has any wisdom to remember.
I have read everything I can find on this subject and came to the conclusion five years ago that I needed more vitamin D. I increased my intake to 1000 iu the first year and 2k the second year and noticed my dermatitis of decades disappeared. I read even more and took more vitamin D and at the same time tested for levels every year at least. I have found (at age 69)I feel best with 10 k a day. The highest level I have ever had was 91 ng/ml. A recent study states that toxicity occurs at 500 ng/ml and that can occur if you take 30 k a day.
I think one of the things that made me more comfortable with taking amounts like this is the fact that our ancestors evolved without clothes and were constantly exposed to it. I do,indeed, believe our society lives and dies with civilization induced illness brought about by wearing clothes during the summer and lack of vitamin D when our ancestors moved away from the equator. I am not suggesting nudity, just trying to make a point. Something to consider; above the Mason Dixon line there is essentially no vitamin D production September to April from the sun.
Dr. Holick has several NEJM articles on his site, as well as others. http://www.vitamindhealth.org/?page_id=48
You do us a great service by writing this article. It’s a ray of sunshine! I have been taking my vitamin D in the form of cod liver oil, which has a good balance of vitamin A to D. Our grandparents knew what they were doing in taking this stuff. We live in New Hampshire, the sun comes out once in a while, and when it does, I’m out there soaking in as much as I can. Thanks again, and good health to you.
Julie (and others),
You said you get vitamin D3 via cod liver oil. You should do some reading on Dr. Cannell’s site, vitamindcouncil.org because he’s convinced that the excessive amount of vit A in cod liver oil frustrates the absorption of vit d3 and is actually injurious. He’s quite adamant on this subject. Just thought you’d want to check it out.
Patick – Nice article and I will indeed study the data for myself.
Bruce Bennett CRNA – Your comment reminded me of a book I saw advocating increased Vitamin D called “Naked at Noon.” So, maybe, in moderation, naked at noon isn’t such a bad idea.
Mom said, “Eat your fruits and vegetables” and guess what… the clinical literature is proving dear old mom right again.
Lastly, I try and add some Vitamin G to my spiritual intake on a daily basis and what do you know… I actually feel better!
I’ll spread the news!
Trivial?
Alternative view of Vitamin D. (scroll down a bit)
Black-White Differences in Cancer Risk and the Vitamin D Hypothesis.
Before blindly supplementing, caution and testing are recommended to avoid excess levels of the biologically active 1,25D form, which, ironically can cause symptoms similar to low levels, such as bone and teeth weakness. For example, my 1,25D was high and my finally teeth stopping cracking and chipping only when I stopped vitamin D intake.
Standard blood tests looks at 25D levels, rather than 1,25D because the 25D test is easier/cheaper and in most people it acts as a proxy for 1,25D. However, people with a Th1 illness (such as lyme disease, sarcoidosis and syphilis) experience a disregulation of vitamin D levels. In this disregulation, 25D undergoes extra-renal convertion to 1,25D, thereby consuming/depleting 25D while creating/boosting 1,25D. In such individuals, the standard 25D blood test is likely to show a low level, and thus mistakenly imply that supplementation is necessary, when simultaneously the individual’s 1,25D level may be deleteriously high.
Recent research indicates that higher vitamin D levels may block proper immune system action against the
the infectious agents responsible for lyme, sarcoidosis and syphilis. Thus supplementing D based on a deceptively low 25D level may prolong such illnesses or cause treatment failure For more info, search Th1 illness.
Too much vitamin D can cause kidney stones, which are horribly painful and can cause serious health problems. And too much direct sun exposure IS dangerous. You should not be as one-sided as those you are criticizing. Also, eggs and to a lesser extent dairy products are a dietary source of vitamin D even in their natural, unfortified forms, so it isn’t true that there are no food sources. I suggest that we are not meant to roast ourselves like hot dogs on a rotisserie, nor live in caves like bats. Moderate exposure to indirect sunlight is more that enough. Follow your natural instincts: get some outdoor time – but stay in the shade! In other words, use common sense and avoid extremes. This article rightly criticizes one extreme and then goes to the other.
logos1j1
Moderate UV exposure is not the “other extreme”. In fact, your example of moderation is exactly why so many people are D deficient, staying in the shade means no D production.
Eggs, cod liver oil, fish, milk etc. are very small sources of vitamin D compared to what current research points to. To get 5000 IU’s of vitamin D per day you would need to either drink 50 glasses of milk or spend 15-20 in the sun. The body’s only natural way of producing adequate vitamin D is through UV exposure, and isn’t the rage nowadays about doing everything natural and organically?
I believe there was a clinical double blind study done on the relationship between vitamin D and breast cancer. I also believe the numbers were between a 50 and 65% reduction in breast cancer incidence with adequate vitamin D levels.
After the good news about Vitamin D in the 1940s, East Germany implemented a program to give infants 600,000 IUs of Vitamin D every 4 months until 18 months of age. (vitaminDcouncil.org) This program lasted for 35 years! When Big Pharma got this news they implemented the sunscare program. It seems they were afraid this information would hurt their profits so they started telling everyone to stay out of the sun.
Madriver
I didn’t say moderate exposure was the other extreme. I said, “Moderate exposure to indirect sunlight is more that enough.” I meant the suggestion in this article that we should take 5000 to 10000 IU’s of chemical “vitamin D” was the other extreme and I stand by that. And it’s anything but natural. You seem to have intentionally twisted what I said but perhaps you just weren’t paying attention. At any rate you said nothing about my concern about kidney stones. Many people who take this (ridiculous) advice are going to find themselves experiencing extreme back pain and difficulty urinating, and many will not know what that means. When they go to their doctors they will not think to mention their “healthy” binging on “vitamin D” and the damage could be irreversible before the true cause is discovered. That is why telling only one side of a story and going to extremes is so dangerous. It’s also dishonest and stupid.
Patrick thanks an excellent public health article …In August 2009, Dr. Garland University of California San Diego presented a review article entitled “Vitamin D for Cancer Prevention:Global Perspective” at the National Academy of Medicine public meeting on Calcium and Vit D recommended levels.
Dr. Holick presented his research also. The academy is considering raising the daily recommended dose which is currently of 1000 IU.
“Moderate exposure to indirect sunlight is more that enough. Follow your natural instincts: get some outdoor time – but stay in the shade!”
This is the opposite extreme to 10,000 IU’s of supplementation…because indirect sunlight DOES NOT produce vitamin D and therefore this advice contributes to the problem.
The only natural way for the body to get sufficient vitamin D is through direct UV exposure. Imagine that, there is a mechanism in the body to produce a needed prohormone that doesn’t involve nutrients or supplementation.
As far as kidney stones and too much vitamin D…it is impossible through UV exposure. The skin has a limiter and once your daily intake is met it stops producing vitamin D.
The sun is good for you.
Madriver
My comments do not represent an extreme of any kind. I was referring to the two extremes that were presented in this article by the author. This should have been obvious. The first extreme was that we should avoid sun exposure at all costs because it is dangerous. This has apparently been promulgated by a Big Pharma conspiracy of global extent. Who knew! (Hopefully Barak Hussein Obama (MMM! MMM! MMM!) can save us from this capitalistic evil.) This was not the position I advocated, nor is the position I did advocate – and which you correctly quoted – anything like it. The second extreme was to “…work on your tan…” which I lambasted as “…[roasting] ourselves like hot dogs on a rotisserie…” and take anywhere from 2000 to 10,000(!) IUs of chemical vitamin D substitute (though he did not correctly label it as such) which I pointed out was anything but natural. I never said you could get too much vitamin D from UV exposure. I said you could get enough through natural sources (in most cases, see below.) Frankly, this should be obvious too, unless you can point me to a vitamin D pill tree growing in the Congo.
Seriously. Eat fish a few of times a week. Eat eggs a few times a week (Shock: they’re not poisonous either!) Drink milk. (Add whole grain bread and wine and I just described the diet most people have lived on for most of human history. Hm. How about that.) Get some sun. And when that becomes uncomfortable – GET SOME SHADE. Is this really confusing? Seriously?! You think that’s an extreme? Really?! Ookaaay. Eat preserved white bread and pop pills. Knock yourself out. The Golden Mean and all …… which is also apparently an extreme; going to extremes being much more moderate ….. Yeah, okay. I can see how you could get confused reading this blog.
Oh, and yes, for that dark-skinned person living up north who about mid-winter starts feeling ill and their doctor recommends more vitamin D: okay, take what he recommends. Better yet: move south.
And you still did not address the fact that too much vitamin D – yes from pill popping not sun-bathing, if you must – can cause kidney stones which in turn can cause any number of other problems, aside from being extremely painful in their own right. This was the concern that originally motivated me to respond to this (extremist) article.
Sheesh. You’d think you needed a medical degree to stay alive seventy odd years!
If there is any conspiracy it’s this: put out contradictory reports every few years until people are completely convinced that they have no idea how to take care of their basic needs, then create a command-and-control governmental structure dictating exactly how they WILL meet those needs – if they don’t want to be fined, denied medical care, institutionalized (for their own good, of course) or imprisoned. Hm.
Eat eggs.
NO!!! Don’t eat eggs! You’ll die of a heart-attack!
Oh, yeah. Go ahead and eat eggs. And bacon. Especially the fat. But no carbohydrates. Those’ll kill ya dead. (Doctor? Doc…. ooooh.)
Maybe lay off the protein and fat a little. ….. Carbs are good.
Etc.
Having followed the developments regarding un-Vitamin D for several years this essay sums it up in excellent fashion. The world’s disappointment with the alphabetic pantheon of deflated true vitamin claims has finally been reversed. Though validation was achieved via secosteroid, not a vitamin.
Mainstream medical thinking had a terrible year. PSA testing and mammography were shown to be practically useless in many applications. Other than causing nearly universal dread they served no purpose other than to oil and maintain America’s growth industry, health care. The stress and worry generated by just these two standard diagnostics is incalculable. Suffice to say there were probably hundreds of thousands of unnecessary, though well intended, “procedures”. And perhaps millions of men will never think of sex the same way again.
In one of Dr. Holick’s web available presentations he closes with a reference and tip of the hat to the Helicobacter pylori bacterium. You know, the crypto bug that could not exist. This creature inhabits the stomach and is thought responsible for at least 80% of all peptic ulcers. As the story is told the doctor who first identified it was literally laughed off the stage. What was once an absurd theory is now accepted as natural fact. The moral in all of this must be that conventional wisdom needs to be examined top to bottom. Whether it is something as grandiose as naming the sun as public health nenemy #1 or as trivial as reading the ingredients label on a bottle of sunscreen.
I’m waiting for the day when Holick and others accept their Nobel prizes for vitamin D research. Perhaps even a movie documenting the most valuable contributions to human health and well being since the discovery of antibiotics? Finally something out of Hollywood which remotely resembles the truth and has a very happy ending.
“Science, rightly, is a process of discovery, not a set of established facts.” Nice! Unfortunately, for some, science has become a process of ignoring and manipulating facts to achieve a desired outcome without any new discovery at all. Dermatologists, for example, would have congress impose a 10% tax on indoor tanning services to help fund the health care bill “AND” request that Photo Therapy sessions in their offices be exempt. Sounds like an attempt to patent sunlight to me Patrick! I agree with the last poster, Nobel Prizes for the life saving Vitamin D researchers!
“Humans make thousands of units of Vitamin D within minutes of whole body exposure to sunlight. From what we know of nature, it is unlikely that such a system evolved by chance.” – Dr. John Cannell
“Spending time in the sun or a tanning bed is the main source of Vitamin D for most Americans” – Dr. Michael F. Holick
Dear Doppleganglander [sorry about the spelling if I messed it up], Regarding your daily use of sunscreen…please take a look at the Environmental Working Group’s website, Skin Deep. Virtually all sunscreens cause cancer, hormone disruptions, even neurological damage. It seems the manufacturers of those products are not held to a very high standard. Please take a look at the database so that you can gauge the risk of the products that you use, and then maybe choose an alternate, less dangerous product. It would be horrible to end up with some kind of awful health issue after being so careful all of your life.
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/
Respectfully,
Tracie
should we be considering this treatment. It is the rage at UCLA
Should I be receiving vitamin D in the quantities described
Nozovent – Scandinavian Formulas has a solution to this age old problem of snoring that is effective and inexpensive.Nozovent gently widens nasal passages to increase airflow up to 50%, dramatically reducing or eliminating snoring. Buy Nozovent on discount at HerbsMD.
http://www.herbsmd.com/detail/nozovent-7466.htm
My comments do not represent an extreme of any kind. I was referring to the two extremes that were presented in this article by the author. This should have been obvious. The first extreme was that we should avoid sun exposure at all costs because it is dangerous. This has apparently been promulgated by a Big Pharma conspiracy of global extent. Who knew! (Hopefully Barak Hussein Obama (MMM! MMM! MMM!) can save us from this capitalistic evil.) This was not the position I advocated, nor is the position I did advocate – and which you correctly quoted – anything like it. The second extreme was to “…work on your tan…” which I lambasted as “…[roasting] ourselves like hot dogs on a rotisserie…” and take anywhere from 2000 to 10,000(!) IUs of chemical vitamin D substitute (though he did not correctly label it as such) which I pointed out was anything but natural. I never said you could get too much vitamin D from UV exposure. I said you could get enough through natural sources (in most cases, see below.) Frankly, this should be obvious too, unless you can point me to a vitamin D pill tree growing in the Congo.
http://tinyurl.com/2v68pmm
While overexposure to sunlight is definitely harmful, underexposure is equally bad too. 15 minutes of sunlight everyday can synthesize a lot of Vitamin D, reducing the risk of cancer.
yeah, there is no doubt about the benefits of Vitamin D and the fact that the excess of any thing is bad for us.
Watch this video about Vitamin D. It brings in good information about nutrition facts and diet. I liked it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3nXzoMhWig
Hey i found some more videos about Vitamin D and it is useful. Go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4DBJeorTpo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8BDObgzXGc
hey found some more videos about Vitamin D and it is good to know more about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4DBJeorTpo
This piece of writing on the topic of how to embed a YouTube video code is genuinely helpful in favor of new internet access users. Nice work, keep it up.
This is an awful article.
White people just shouldn’t get much sunlight.
I notice you are selling vitamin D.
Has there been a controlled study to test all these health claims. That’s where the rubber meets the road. I doubt it. Remember the obvious benefits of post menopausal estrogens before they did the randomized study?
“Melanoma, on the other hand, is the deadly skin cancer that most people erroneously relate to sunshine. Melanomas, however, do not tend to occur on parts of the body that get direct sunlight. This not only argues against the notion that sunshine directly causes them, it makes them less likely to be detected. ”
This is just wrong. My boss’s wife died from a melanoma on her foot. No sunlight? She like to lie in the sun in Florida.
Black people get melanomas under their finger nails, where this is no melanin.
That’s because the thick keratin in the nail seems to block out the burning rays, but lets in the rays that cause melanoma.
We see melanomas all the time on sunexposed skin. Rarely on non-sunexposed skin. We commonly see melanoma on the dorsum of the forearm, rarely on the ventral forearm.
By spreading this disinformation, you will get people killed.
I’ve been taking 10,000 units a day in the winter and 5,000 in the summer months for the last 5 years.
Since vitamin D synthesis declines after age 30, most older people are not going to be able to produce enough through direct sunlight by following typical recommendations. It’s extremely important that older people, particularly women at risk for osteoporosis get their levels checked annually and supplement as needed. Since Medicare no longer pays for routine Vit D level checks, most seniors will not know if they are deficient.
The typical government recommendation of lowering fat in the diet, taking statins to lower cholesterol and using sun screen when outside has probably contributed more harm to the population than will ever be admitted.
This article is now a little over 2 years old. Here are a few updates that might be of use.
1. Vitamin K is a Vitamin D cofactor, meaning that the two work together. You can get Vitamin K from natural sources such as greens like spinach, eggs, goose liver (foies gras), and natto (a Japanese dish of fermented soybeans). Also, there is reasonable anecdotal evidence that concentrated butter oil (look up Weston A. Price) is an excellent source of K. If you go the supplement route, get K2 as it’s more useful to the body than the K1 form. The Japanese have done studies where people supplemented up to 45 milligrams per day without ill effect. Vitamin K helps the body deposit calcium in the right spots (bones & teeth) instead of the wrong spots (your arteries).
2. Vitamin A is also a cofactor of Vitamin D. I know there has been concern in the past about Vitamin D toxicity and Vitamin A toxicity. What’s interesting is that it’s rare (hard to say impossible) for someone who supplements with A & D to ever develop toxic levels. The two work together to balance each other out. From reading and listening to Chris Masterjohn, it looks like a reasonable ratio of Vitamin D to Vitamin A is around 1:1 or 2:1.
3. Seth Roberts has been running an interesting series on his blog regarding the correct time of day to take D3 supplements. Apparently, taking them early in the morning *may* lead to deeper, more consistent sleep. Taking it after noon or in the evening *may* lead to insomnia or otherwise poor sleep. If you are going to take the supplement, take it in the morning. Sounds like that helps more than it hurts.
Lastly, I like the “Anonymous” (post 67) above who is upset that the article is wrong, misleading, etc. And then they say “White people just shouldn’t get much sunlight.” Thanks for citing *your* evidence, anonymous. I’m convinced! And you “doubt” there have been scientific studies that support these allegations. Please use google to find those studies (which do exist). May I suggest typing in “vitamin d controlled study” and checking out the first page of hits. You have been served.
What is needed:
1. A graph or graphs that enable a person to determine how much time to spend per session in direct sunlight based on the variables of pigmentation (black, very dark, dark, light brown, light, pale), age, latitude, and area (square inches) of skin exposed to sun. Assume two sessions in seven days, and vary that assumption (one session every day, one a week, and so on).
2. Information on how much D3 can be created in a session of exposure to solar radiation before the body begins to break the chemical down as fast as it makes it. How much D can be stored in fat cells? Does that amount vary with a person’s age?
Obviously the data will vary over time as more is learned. Fine. We have to start somewhere.
It should not be necessary for everyone to have a test in order to insure an optimum level of D. So far, all I have been able to get from the scattered and conflicting suggestions leaves me unsure as to how much time, effort and money to put into this. Surely there is a rational path between ignoring D and turning into a crank. A little sun, a litte supplementation — good, I’ll do it. Now give me some practical guidlines so I can design my personal protocol.
At present, digging those guidelines out of the many articles and reports on D strikes me as next to impossible. That’s only partly because what I have read does not always come from people who know what they are writing about (questions of health and nutrition always attract all kinds of nuts). Consequently all I know to do is get out into the sun when I can, and take some pills.
Yes, of course testing my blood regularly would be best, but the truth is, I am not going to do that, and I doubt very much that any more than a very tiny percentage of the population will, either.
So: please end the sales pitch (I’m sold) and tell us what we should do. Yes, we need more instructions, so make those instructions easy to understand, complete enough to cover everybody, and close enough to perfect for imperfect people living in an imperfect world. Give us graduated scales and variables so we can locate ourselves on your chart and see what we need to do for our benefit — without blood tests. Thanks in advance.
Evidence that melanoma is caused by sunlight?
Australia has the highest of melanoma in the world.
Saying Australia has the highest melanoma in the world is useless. For one, you have provided no proof of it beyond your assertion that it is true. Second, at it’s nearest point Australia is 695 miles *away* from the equator. There are many countries where the equator runs *right through* it.
If your implication is true, then melanomas should be very prevalent in equatorial countries. As you move from the equator to the poles, the number of melanomas should drop to nearly 0 (on a population-adjusted basis). Do a little research and post a link (or some search terms that will lead to your link(s)) showing this data. It isn’t proof, but it would be a strong hint.
Just showing a strong correlation between low levels of vitamin D and bad health of various kinds is interesting, but as any statistician will tell you, correlation is not causation. If your health is bad for whatever reason, you are more likely to spend a lot of time indoors. Then, since your vitamin D level is increased so much by the amount of time spent outdoors in the sun, you would expect bad health of all types to be correlated with low vitamin D levels. If this is what is really going on, increasing vitamin D levels will probably not help. Similarly, obese people may well be much more likely to stay indoors, both because it takes them more effort to move around and because they may be reluctant to display themselves. This effect will cause low levels of vitamin D to be correlated with the future development of all the diseases promoted by obesity in presently healthy obese individuals. Here again, if this is what is going on, increasing vitamin D levels will probably not help. You definitely need studies (double-blind studies, one hopes) where administration of vitamin D or purposeful exposure to extra sunshine — in the absence of any other treatment — improves the health of those supposedly suffering from low vitamin D levels.
ZZZ, please look at my response in #69. There are some google search terms that will lead you to the studies you seek.
They have been done and more are being done. Please note that the article you have just responded to is over 2 years old. Quite a bit has happened in that time span.
Lastly, I want to poke a hole in the “correlation isn’t causation” phrase. One, the article doesn’t base any conclusions off of correlation. Two, while correlation is not causation, it also doesn’t prevent a correlation/causation link from being true. In other words, sometimes a strong correlation is a *strong hint* that a researcher has stumbled onto something important. To ignore it because of this old debate phrase is foolish.
My solution to the lack of sunlight at 61 degrees north lattitude is to spend as much of the winter as I can with my toes in the water and my butt in the sand in Mexico!
“solisphobia”
What a hideous misconstruction!
“Sol” is Latin; “phobia” is Greek.
The correct construction would be “heliophobia”.
Or “photophobia” (fear of light).
Perhaps even “heliophotophobia”.
But never “solisphobia”!
“sol” is an English word root meaning “sun”. “phobia” is an English word root meaning “fear”. What’s so hideous taking two English word roots, and combining them to make “solisphobia”, a fear of the sun?
“Holick, incidentally, is a strong proponent of sunscreen use. He recommends using it on face and hands, which are constantly exposed to sunshine and on any part of the body exposed to sun after moderate, “sensible” exposure.”
then how can even a young, healthy person get enough vit d w/o supplementation? unless one walks around shirtless, isnt most of the sun hitting the face and hands?
i have been using sunscreen daily winter and summer, but also supplementing w/ vit d. for the past few years.
lately, ive been considering deliberately going outside before putting on sunscreen, or after washing it off, just to get some sun, i.e. natural vit d. is this a bad idea? this is an impractical approach of course, since before applying sunscreen might typically be early am and after washing it off will probably be late afternoon, times of least direct sunlight. but i thought maybe in summer that would suffice, even if i could only do this a few times a week. is my planned strategy misguided?