411–420 of 459 posts
This older paper suggests vitamin D isn't as important - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl... . I'm not sure which is correct, but good to have an opposing view.
I wouldn't call that especially relevant, and it's definitely not an opposing view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!
People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. People who cook themselves for fun do. If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it.
That's a bit of a blasé thing to say... I have lost direct family members through melanoma due to their work requiring them to be in the sun all day, and clearly many other people here have too. I can't fathom how you would form such an opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My electrician father who spent several years working on rooftops in Houston and developed skin cancer on his hand at 51 would beg to differ.
Antidotes are not data. We have no reason to believe from your story that your would not have got skin cancer if he had spent all his time in a cave. Or maybe he wouldn't have, because he would have died of something even worse at 45. Science is trying to work this out, it is complex. We know that sun exposure both protects from and causes skin cancer depending on the study. This is a complex subject, the only thing…
https://wiki.cancer.org.au/skincancerstats/Settings:_Workpla...
It is estimated that around 200 melanomas and 34,000 non-melanoma skin cancers per year are caused by occupational exposures in Australia.[1]
http://www.cancer.org.au/content/pdf/PreventingCancer/BeSuns...
The 2006 Report on indicators for occupational disease highlights there was an increase in skin cancer claims per million employees/persons over a six-year period to 2004. The report says that given the long latency period associated with exposure and the onset of skin cancer, it is also likely that compensation claims greatly understate the real incidence of occupational skin cancer6 .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's not misinformation. one anecdote in one direction does not counter thousands in the other direction. Talk to some people in the southern hemisphere (australia and nz). There is a LOT of awareness of sun damage in these countries.
There is misinformation about sunscreen. I'm not going to go and advocate that people don't use sunscreen, rather, for my own self, I've decided that it's important to have positive, moderate exposure to the sun in order to develop a healthy tan, to avoid overexposure, and to use sunscreen and protective clothing if I'm sure to be out in heavy sun. It's a complex, dynamical issue and there is conflicting evidence abo…
How do you get your levels checked in the UK if you have private insurance?
I was just looking this up after reading this article and discovered that an NHS lab can send you a test kit in the post for £28, which will likely be cheaper than any private option. http://www.vitamindtest.org.uk/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yah like doing 25k a day. That could cause problems.
Surprisingly few problems. Wife has been doing 80k a day for the past few years and have help tremendously with her auto immune decease. If you're going to do high doses, stay away from anything with significant amount of calcium in your food (dairy, nuts etc)
This supports my lived experience. Found to be incredibly low in vitamin D, and diagnosed with autoimmune thyroiditis. Doctor said to supplement with 2000 IU being the max per day. After seeing no improvement whatsoever in vitamin D levels, and after talking with others with the same issue, I self medicated to 10000 IU / day. Lo and behold my vitamin D levels went back up and my auto-antibodies went back down.
If you're taking little green footballs of oil-based D2, I suggest dry D3. I had much better response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know the subthread went in another direction, but: vitamin D increases the absorption of calcium. With minimal vitamin D synthesis from sun exposure in northern Europe, it makes sense that extra dietary calcium would be an evolutionary advantage. Hence, lactose tolerance. So OP's comment made sense even while confusing vitamin d and calcium.
Hah, that's a direction I hadn't considered. That is indeed exactly why vit D is added to milk in the first place. The milk industry claims it's a good source of calcium, but fails to mention it's generally a poorly absorbed source of calcium. Hence the addition of vit D. Hard cheeses are generally very low in lactose, by the way, but I guess lactose intolerant societies are unlikely to discover this on their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the time it takes to get a burn is 10 minutes or less, you might as well treat it as exposure = burn.
That's when sunbathing on Venus. Or if you're a ginger or similar. On good old Earth, one can sit in the sun for hours on end without a burn. In fact people frequently do, like all the time.