Vitamin D Consenus

NevadaSmith · **Joined:** Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:26 pm **Posts:** 50

It is my understanding that sun exposure for the purpose of vitamin D making needs to be unprotected sun exposure without sunscreen. For this reason some doctors recommend zero sun exposure and instead say to use supplements while others say to greatly limit you exposure.

The amount of exposure needed will vary depending on numerous factors including age, type of skin, your health, your location [how far north or south of the equator you are - time of year and altitude]. Personally, for me, I will spend 20 minutes to 30 minutes depending on how high the sun is in the sky. So in the summer when the sun is at it's highest I may spend only 20 minutes but in late spring or early fall I may spend 30 minutes a couple times a week.

It's really complicated when you consider all the variables but once you make the determination for you personally then it's quite simple. If your skin turns pink from the exposure then you need to spend less time. If you develop a base tan then you need to spend more time.

This is my opinion but it is based on reading the book, The Vitamin D Solution

JeffN · **Joined:** Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:56 am **Posts:** 5024

While anything can be done to excess, The benefits of adequate & safe sun exposure go far beyond vitamin D & is essential to good health.

In health
Jeff

Chimichanga · **Joined:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:07 am **Posts:** 516

Dr McDougall in his recent newsletter wrote an article on Vit D. He insists on not taking supplements but get your Vit D from Sun which is understandable. On the other hand Dr Holick's(vitamin D expert) contention is that even near equator large percentage of people are vitamin D deficient, he cited an example of people living in India. He used 30 ng/ml as the cut off. If people near equator can not get enough vitamin D then how in the world people living up north can get enough even if you made it the point to spend sometime in Sun, therefore he recommends some supplemets(after testing and spending some time in Sun and still deficient) if you are deficient. He said he personally takes 1400 IU/day.

ETeSelle · **Joined:** Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:09 am **Posts:** 5001

Proof of that???

GeoffreyLevens · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:02 pm

ETeSelle wrote:

Proof of that???

Something like this?
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/6/2130

Quote:

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, doi:10.1210/jc.2006-2250

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 92, No. 6 2130-2135
Copyright © 2007 by The Endocrine Society

Low Vitamin D Status despite Abundant Sun Exposure

N. Binkley, R. Novotny, D. Krueger, T. Kawahara, Y. G. Daida, G. Lensmeyer, B. W. Hollis and M. K. Drezner

Context: Lack of sun exposure is widely accepted as the primary cause of epidemic low vitamin D status worldwide. However, some individuals with seemingly adequate UV exposure have been reported to have low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration, results that might have been confounded by imprecision of the assays used.

Objective: The aim was to document the 25(OH)D status of healthy individuals with habitually high sun exposure.

Setting: This study was conducted in a convenience sample of adults in Honolulu, Hawaii (latitude 21°).

Participants: The study population consisted of 93 adults (30 women and 63 men) with a mean (SEM) age and body mass index of 24.0 yr (0.7) and 23.6 kg/m2 (0.4), respectively. Their self-reported sun exposure was 28.9 (1.5) h/wk, yielding a calculated sun exposure index of 11.1 (0.7).

Main Outcome Measures: Serum 25(OH)D concentration was measured using a precise HPLC assay. Low vitamin D status was defined as a circulating 25(OH)D concentration less than 30 ng/ml.

Results: Mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 31.6 ng/ml. Using a cutpoint of 30 ng/ml, 51% of this population had low vitamin D status. The highest 25(OH)D concentration was 62 ng/ml.

Conclusions: These data suggest that variable responsiveness to UVB radiation is evident among individuals, causing some to have low vitamin D status despite abundant sun exposure. In addition, because the maximal 25(OH)D concentration produced by natural UV exposure appears to be approximately 60 ng/ml, it seems prudent to use this value as an upper limit when prescribing vitamin D supplementation.

Note, some have low D and some are fine. Blood testing is the only way to know for any given individual.

JeffN · **Joined:** Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:56 am **Posts:** 5024

Individuals can always find a study or two to support a position. This is why a consensus opinion by an expert panel is so important. No one or two study can or will supersede the consensus especially when the consensus has already considered these exact individual studies I'm their report.

In health
Jeff

Chimichanga · **Joined:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:07 am **Posts:** 516

JeffN wrote:

Individuals can always find a study or two to support a position. This is why a consensus opinion by an expert panel is so important. No one or two study can or will supersede the consensus especially when the consensus has already considered these exact individual studies I'm their report.

In health
Jeff

Jeff,

Your and Dr McDougall's point is well taken in the sense that one need not rush to vitamin pills as a first remedy, as besides D levels, proper exposure to sun is also essential for other vital functions. The problem is after exposing adequately in summer months if you are still deficient then do what? (for those who live in north where year round sun is not available). Solid evidence is there that despite more than adequate Sun exposure, some people were still deficient.

JeffN · **Joined:** Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:56 am **Posts:** 5024

Agreed!

My 4th post on page 1 in this thread directly responds to your points.

In health
Jeff

Chimichanga · **Joined:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:07 am **Posts:** 516

Vitamin D Levels Linked With Health of Blood Vessels
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205232.htm

JeffN · **Joined:** Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:56 am **Posts:** 5024

Chimichanga wrote:

Vitamin D Levels Linked With Health of Blood Vessels
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205232.htm

It is only discussing deficiency and as I responded to your earlier question, of course, deficiencies of all kinds exist and of course, they should be addressed as those who are deficient in any area may have health related problems.

But that has nothing to do with the massive hype that has been created around Vitamin D.

In Health
Jeff

Spiral · **Posted:** Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:25 pm

Jeff,

I got a little bit caught up in the massive hype of Vitimain D a few years ago. I had just moved to Indianapolis and I found a doctor to see, just for a physical.

Well, he was really into Vitamin D. He seemed to think that more Vitaimin D could cure just about any ailment. From depression to cancer, Vitamin D might be the "hidden cure" we were all looking for.

And he was persuasive. He said, "Humans used to get tons of Vitamin D in the days when they lived near the equator, did not work indoors and didn't wear lots of clothing. Now we work indoors, we live far north of the equator and when we do go outside, we put on sunscreen."

He recommended that I take 50,000 IU per week. I hesistated. But eventually I started taking it. But after a while I wondered if it was a good idea. And I changed doctors. My new doctor is sort of agnostic about Vitamin D. I think that's a good place to be right now.

JeffN · **Joined:** Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:56 am **Posts:** 5024

NevadaSmith wrote:

I don't recall what they say here?

Read the consensus in the original posts and especially the points it makes about the cut-offs and recommended levels.

It really goes a long way in helping to understand the issues.

In Health
Jeff

funcrunch · **Posted:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:18 pm

I just had my Vitamin D levels checked, along with a lot of other tests as I was feeling fatigued for several weeks in a row. I got 14.4 ng/mL, which even by McDougall's standards is on the low side. The doc wants me to take 4000 IU of D3 daily for a month and then 2000 IU a day after that. But I am going to try to get it from sunlight, as I do live in San Francisco after all. I have darker skin and have not been going out as much as I should. I'll get tested again in a month or two and see how things look.

GeoffreyLevens · **Posted:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:11 pm

Quote:

But I am going to try to get it from sunlight, as I do live in San Francisco after all.

Having lived in that area for 10 years or so, that seems like a non-sequitor to me! Fog, fog, and more fog, cold and windy... plus pretty far north...

funcrunch · **Posted:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:15 pm

GeoffreyLevens wrote:

Quote:

But I am going to try to get it from sunlight, as I do live in San Francisco after all.

Having lived in that area for 10 years or so, that seems like a non-sequitor to me!

Heh, I've lived here for eight years now and it's not that bad. That quote about the "coldest winters" being "summers in San Francisco" is so old - we even get up to 100 at least a couple of times a year in September or October...

Discussion Board

Vitamin D Consenus

Who is online