Re: Re: Fw: [CR] Recommendations for Vitamin D should be revised upward

[Guest guest]

What I mean is, if I get some tan, any tan at all, is it a good sign I get enough D? Looking for an indicator.

Looks like it is a good indicator.

And the regularity issue - the skincancer.org says only 2 or 3 times per week, hands, arms and face for 10-15 mins, is enough.

So the question is how much supp do we need if any, - why is 2000 maybe, being touted when we get so much from the sun which can give us a massive dose daily, yet some think we'll get a toxic dose from pills?

I don't understand the pill warning if I can get 10000 daily just going outside for a few minutes.

How about if I work in the sun for 4 hours? Do I store enough for a winters?

I'm missing something here. You're in Canada? what supp do you use?

http://skincancer.org/documents/VitaminD_DeLeo.pdf

says the AI is 600 IU, over 70yo.

says supp 800 - 1000 daily, not to exceed 2000 IU.

Regards.

5. One person dies from melanoma, a type of skin cancer, almost every hour (approximately every 68 minutes) in the United States. Today, melanoma is the most prevalent form of cancer among women aged 25 to 29. It is expected that new cases of melanoma will increase by 10 percent in 2005. This raises an American’s lifetime risk of developing melanoma to 1 in 34.

6. Dietary sources of vitamin D do not prematurely age the skin nor increase the risk of developing skin cancer or actinic keratoses. Dietary sources are available year round. Good sources include fortified milk, fortified cereal, salmon, mackerel and cod liver oil. Research shows that vitamin D supplements are well-tolerated, safe and effective. 7. People can have normal vitamin D levels with limited sun exposure. A 1997 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute shows that patients with xeroderma pigmentosa (a condition that causes multiple skin cancers in persons exposed to the smallest amounts of ultraviolet radiation), who have had maximum UV protection over several years, have normal vitamin D levels despite virtually no UV exposure.

10. Vitamin D from food and dietary supplements offers the same benefits — without the danger of UV exposure — as vitamin D obtained from the sun. Vitamin D cannot be used by the body until it is processed by the liver and the kidneys. The usable form of vitamin D created by this process is the same — regardless of how it enters the body.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Fw: [CR] "Recommendations for Vitamin D should be revised upward"

Hi JW:I did a Google search a while back for vitamin D and found a credible source which said that enough sunlight to get even the mildest skin pigmentation gave a massive dose of D (IIRC 10,000 IU).So skin coloration, if sun exposure is regular, is not necessary nutrition-wise.Rodney.>> Here is says we use 4000 IU and get 90% from sunlight.> Assuming what we get from sunlight is minimal, is 4000 IU by> mouth adequate? Or is there a 50% loss in absorption?> TOL, we must absorb more from minor exposure than we think> maybe.> Can we judge the dose by the tanning of the skin?> > Regards.>

[Guest guest]

What I mean is, if I get some tan, any tan at all, is it a good sign I get enough D? Looking for an indicator.

Looks like it is a good indicator.

And the regularity issue - the skincancer.org says only 2 or 3 times per week, hands, arms and face for 10-15 mins, is enough.

So the question is how much supp do we need if any, - why is 2000 maybe, being touted when we get so much from the sun which can give us a massive dose daily, yet some think we'll get a toxic dose from pills?

I don't understand the pill warning if I can get 10000 daily just going outside for a few minutes.

How about if I work in the sun for 4 hours? Do I store enough for a winters?

I'm missing something here. You're in Canada? what supp do you use?

http://skincancer.org/documents/VitaminD_DeLeo.pdf

says the AI is 600 IU, over 70yo.

says supp 800 - 1000 daily, not to exceed 2000 IU.

Regards.

5. One person dies from melanoma, a type of skin cancer, almost every hour (approximately every 68 minutes) in the United States. Today, melanoma is the most prevalent form of cancer among women aged 25 to 29. It is expected that new cases of melanoma will increase by 10 percent in 2005. This raises an American’s lifetime risk of developing melanoma to 1 in 34.

6. Dietary sources of vitamin D do not prematurely age the skin nor increase the risk of developing skin cancer or actinic keratoses. Dietary sources are available year round. Good sources include fortified milk, fortified cereal, salmon, mackerel and cod liver oil. Research shows that vitamin D supplements are well-tolerated, safe and effective. 7. People can have normal vitamin D levels with limited sun exposure. A 1997 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute shows that patients with xeroderma pigmentosa (a condition that causes multiple skin cancers in persons exposed to the smallest amounts of ultraviolet radiation), who have had maximum UV protection over several years, have normal vitamin D levels despite virtually no UV exposure.

10. Vitamin D from food and dietary supplements offers the same benefits — without the danger of UV exposure — as vitamin D obtained from the sun. Vitamin D cannot be used by the body until it is processed by the liver and the kidneys. The usable form of vitamin D created by this process is the same — regardless of how it enters the body.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Fw: [CR] "Recommendations for Vitamin D should be revised upward"

Hi JW:I did a Google search a while back for vitamin D and found a credible source which said that enough sunlight to get even the mildest skin pigmentation gave a massive dose of D (IIRC 10,000 IU).So skin coloration, if sun exposure is regular, is not necessary nutrition-wise.Rodney.>> Here is says we use 4000 IU and get 90% from sunlight.> Assuming what we get from sunlight is minimal, is 4000 IU by> mouth adequate? Or is there a 50% loss in absorption?> TOL, we must absorb more from minor exposure than we think> maybe.> Can we judge the dose by the tanning of the skin?> > Regards.>

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi JW:

>

> Good question. How much can the body store? And how long do those

> stores last with an inadequate intake? Dunno.

>

> But there have been so many new studies appear in the last two years

> indicating that vitamin D prevents or cures almost as many

> afflications as statins; and with new studies saying the actual safe

> daily upper limit is perhaps five times higher than the current

> official 'USL' (which I believe is 2000 IU), it seems to me that

> taking a higher amount daily may be advisable, and up to 2000 IU is

> certainly safe.

>

> As for me, Fitday tells me that I get only just the RDA from food.

> And I only get that much because of the fish I eat. Until now I have

> been taking supplements amounting to about 270 IU per day. But as of

> today(!!!) - bought the extra supplements yesterday - I will be

> taking 1000 a day in addition to what I get from food.

>

> In the north there is no problem in the summer months. But in winter

> the sun is at a low angle to the horizon and gets filtered through

> much more stuff on its way to me. So it is doubtful I get much

> vitamin D from sunlight in the winter. Besides I don't sunbathe as

> much here in February.

>

> Some scientists believe the higher colon cancer rate in the northern

> US, compared with the rate in the southern US may be because of

> inadquate D from sunlight in the north.

>

> Rodney.

>

> [PS: I see you used the 'possibility' usage of the word 'may' in the

> first sentance of your post to Al, LOL. Good one!]

>

>

>> >

>> > Here is says we use 4000 IU and get 90% from sunlight.

>> > Assuming what we get from sunlight is minimal, is 4000 IU by

>> > mouth adequate? Or is there a 50% loss in absorption?

>> > TOL, we must absorb more from minor exposure than we think

>> > maybe.

>> > Can we judge the dose by the tanning of the skin?

>> >

>> > Regards.

>> >

>>

>

>

Apparently enough to survive winter but fwiw it's not coincidence that

peoples who evolved at higher latitudes had fairer skin.

JR

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi JW:

>

> Good question. How much can the body store? And how long do those

> stores last with an inadequate intake? Dunno.

>

> But there have been so many new studies appear in the last two years

> indicating that vitamin D prevents or cures almost as many

> afflications as statins; and with new studies saying the actual safe

> daily upper limit is perhaps five times higher than the current

> official 'USL' (which I believe is 2000 IU), it seems to me that

> taking a higher amount daily may be advisable, and up to 2000 IU is

> certainly safe.

>

> As for me, Fitday tells me that I get only just the RDA from food.

> And I only get that much because of the fish I eat. Until now I have

> been taking supplements amounting to about 270 IU per day. But as of

> today(!!!) - bought the extra supplements yesterday - I will be

> taking 1000 a day in addition to what I get from food.

>

> In the north there is no problem in the summer months. But in winter

> the sun is at a low angle to the horizon and gets filtered through

> much more stuff on its way to me. So it is doubtful I get much

> vitamin D from sunlight in the winter. Besides I don't sunbathe as

> much here in February.

>

> Some scientists believe the higher colon cancer rate in the northern

> US, compared with the rate in the southern US may be because of

> inadquate D from sunlight in the north.

>

> Rodney.

>

> [PS: I see you used the 'possibility' usage of the word 'may' in the

> first sentance of your post to Al, LOL. Good one!]

>

>

>> >

>> > Here is says we use 4000 IU and get 90% from sunlight.

>> > Assuming what we get from sunlight is minimal, is 4000 IU by

>> > mouth adequate? Or is there a 50% loss in absorption?

>> > TOL, we must absorb more from minor exposure than we think

>> > maybe.

>> > Can we judge the dose by the tanning of the skin?

>> >

>> > Regards.

>> >

>>

>

>

Apparently enough to survive winter but fwiw it's not coincidence that

peoples who evolved at higher latitudes had fairer skin.

JR

>

[Guest guest]

But is there another thing working here, like the chem vit d does things in addition by "overdosing" on cholecalciferol? Not talking the deficiency thing. The author is suggesting something else, I think.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/11/08/hscout529005.html

"And there is still a lot to be learned about vitamin D, Heaney said. "Vitamin D is probably more important than most of us realized until recently," he said. "But we have studied it in the context of vitamin deficiency. We have to do a better job of nailing down the optimum daily requirements.""

BTW,

"For example, vitamin D deficiency is common in Saudi Arabia, he said, because men and women cover most of their bodies with flowing robes."

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Fw: [CR] "Recommendations for Vitamin D should be revised upward"

Apparently enough to survive winter but fwiw it's not coincidence that peoples who evolved at higher latitudes had fairer skin.JR

[Guest guest]

But is there another thing working here, like the chem vit d does things in addition by "overdosing" on cholecalciferol? Not talking the deficiency thing. The author is suggesting something else, I think.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/11/08/hscout529005.html

"And there is still a lot to be learned about vitamin D, Heaney said. "Vitamin D is probably more important than most of us realized until recently," he said. "But we have studied it in the context of vitamin deficiency. We have to do a better job of nailing down the optimum daily requirements.""

BTW,

"For example, vitamin D deficiency is common in Saudi Arabia, he said, because men and women cover most of their bodies with flowing robes."

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Fw: [CR] "Recommendations for Vitamin D should be revised upward"

Apparently enough to survive winter but fwiw it's not coincidence that peoples who evolved at higher latitudes had fairer skin.JR