Sunshine? Did they get it wrong?

[zinger1457]

This guy took Vitamin D supplements to the extreme and it led to severe kidney damage.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408114319.htm

A 54-year-old man, after returning from a trip to Southeast Asia where he spent much of his holiday sunbathing, showed increased levels of creatinine, suggesting kidney damage or malfunction. After referral to a kidney specialist and further testing, it was discovered that he had been prescribed high doses of vitamin D by a naturopath, who recommended a dose of 8 drops every day. Over 2 ½ years, the patient, who did not have a history of bone loss or vitamin D deficiency, took 8-12 drops of vitamin D daily, totalling 8000-12,000 IU. As a result, he had very high levels of calcium in the blood, which left him with significant kidney damage.

 

[Rianne]

This guy took Vitamin D supplements to the extreme and it led to severe kidney damage.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408114319.htm

This is exactly why I do not take supplements of any kind on a regular basis. We have no idea of their long term effects or even what's really in them. They are not regulated. I have kidney disease and my Nephrologist (kidney specialist) strictly said stay away from supplements and NSAIDS. Vitamin D might be safe in low levels, but organ function differs in people. Liver damage from Tylenol? You bet.

 

[Smitty700]

Another example of confusing causation with correlation, always an issue in health studies.

A study shows low vitamin D levels are associated with negative health effects. People jump to the conclusion that lack of vitamin D is the cause. Later studies show the lack of vitamin D is a symptom as well. The theory is now lack of sunlight causes the health issues and the vitamin D deficiencies.

Next, will we see studies showing another behavior that reduces sun exposure, causes vitamin D deficiencies, and the negative health effects is the real cause?

 

[Smitty700]

The observations on skin cancer in that article were also interesting.

• Sun exposure correlates with a higher rate of skin cancer, but also correlates with a longer lifespan.
• The most common skin cancers are squamous-cell and basal-cell, which are rarely fatal.
• Melanoma accounts for roughly 1 to 3 percent of skin cancers, but perplexingly, outdoor workers who typically get more sun than indoor workers get melanoma at half the indoor workers' rate.

My conclusion? Don't worry about the sun. Get out and enjoy it.

It's sunny out. I'm getting on my bike...

 

[NoMoreJob]

I always wondered how our species survived and got this far along without sunscreen.

Seems that after a couple million years we should have adapted to those harmful rays. I live in Florida half the year; never used sunscreen in all my life. I only get tan(ner) and have never had a sunburn...genes.

DW is a fair Irish, so.......I get that it's different.

My maternal grandparents were farmers in the early 1900's. They often wore hats and long sleeves when they worked. Just a different form of sunscreen.

 

[joeea]

People need to have more respect for well known, generally respected media and government agencies, not the two websites linked to in this thread. I didn't even click them. In articles I trusted that covered this issue over the last several years there were estimates of the amount of sun you should be getting to reduce the risk of cancer and they were pretty low. Like 10-20 minutes. I forgot whether that was per week or daily. If I had a history of skin cancer and my doctor said to use sun screen and a hat whenever I go out, I'd think that's reasonable unless I read something I found convincing that's to the contrary, and those websites wouldn't convince me of anything even if I visited them.

Lack of confidence in authorities is a big problem these days, perhaps exacerbated by access to so many websites happy to echo and emphasize whatever opinion you already hold, no matter how wrong.

 

[joeea]

outdoor workers who typically get more sun than indoor workers get melanoma at half the indoor workers' rate.

https://www.politifact.com/oregon/s...door-workers-more-likely-get-melanoma-despit/

My conclusion? Don't worry about the sun.

Hmm...

 

[RAE]

People need to have more respect for well known, generally respected media and government agencies, not the two websites linked to in this thread. I didn't even click them. In articles I trusted that covered this issue over the last several years there were estimates of the amount of sun you should be getting to reduce the risk of cancer and they were pretty low. Like 10-20 minutes. I forgot whether that was per week or daily. If I had a history of skin cancer and my doctor said to use sun screen and a hat whenever I go out, I'd think that's reasonable unless I read something I found convincing that's to the contrary, and those websites wouldn't convince me of anything even if I visited them.

Actually, both articles linked to base much of their conclusions on published, peer-reviewed articles from medical journals, or (in the case of the first link), discuss those studies within the article itself. And the second article talks about recommendations from the govt's of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK for people to get more sun exposure (would you consider advice from govt's to be ok?). So we are not talking about someone just making a blog post based on their opinion.

And with regard to those "generally respected govt. agencies" whose advice you like to follow - which agencies are you referring to? The American Heart Association is largely funded by the big agricultural companies and big pharmaceutical companies. The USDA food pyramid, with its heavy emphasis on consumption of grains/carbohydrates, has led to all sorts of chronic disease problems, but it's also made a lot of money for those companies who sold all those grain products and statin drugs, etc.. And I could name other supposedly "well-respected" agencies and organizations that are also heavily influenced by industry.

What amazes me is how some people blindly follow the advice of agencies and organizations like this, without doing their own research on a subject. It's pretty obvious that the advice from these organizations is heavily influenced by the industries that stand to profit from such advice. And that advice changes VERY slowly, if at all..........typically there will be hundreds of published papers out there debunking that advice before any corrections are made.

Personally, I do my own research, since my health is pretty important to me. YMMV.

 

[Boho]

Actually, both articles linked to base much of their conclusions on published, peer-reviewed articles from medical journals, or (in the case of the first link), discuss those studies within the article itself. And the second article talks about recommendations from the govt's of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK for people to get more sun exposure (would you consider advice from govt's to be ok?). So we are not talking about someone just making a blog post based on their opinion.

OK, I clicked the links. The article "Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?" is from Outdoor Magazine. Not just not a doctor, not just not a respected news source, but a special interest magazine that promotes outdoor activities. You can't get less impartial than that. There are actual NEWS sources that cover this. There are health organizations. The American Cancer Society says "Seek shade...Protect your skin with clothing...Use sunscreen..." here.

The article "Does Avoiding The Sun Shorten Your Lifespan?" starts with a link to an article (from the same website) titled "dietary cholesterol doesn’t increase the risk of heart disease, or even raise blood cholesterol levels." I've previously read that only healthy people can have an egg a day. There's already an egg thread on this forum about a new study that says adding eggs to your diet is unhealthy (though many if not all posters to that thread seemed to not realize the article said that).

I also read that the FDA was aware of a substance in whole dairy products that has shown some beneficial health effects in a recent study and they didn't change their recommendations that people eat non fat and low fat dairy. There were numerous previous studies showing the harm of saturated fat and they don't all get negated as soon as a new study says something different.

And with regard to those "generally respected govt. agencies" whose advice you like to follow - which agencies are you referring to? The American Heart Association is largely funded by the big agricultural companies and big pharmaceutical companies. The USDA food pyramid, with its heavy emphasis on consumption of grains/carbohydrates, has led to all sorts of chronic disease problems, but it's also made a lot of money for those companies who sold all those grain products and statin drugs, etc.. And I could name other supposedly "well-respected" agencies and organizations that are also heavily influenced by industry.

Yes, the AHA and the food pyramid (if it's still used and understood) are trustworthy. The work has already been done to identify trustworthy sources. -- a "Dr." in front of a name, especially a bunch of doctors hired to head an agency specializing in a particular subject, quoted in conventional media HUGELY outweighs some non-physician blogger attempting to review the literature.

 

[Al in Ohio]

True. Lions were the 'cigarettes' of the day back then!

Except in more recent days they lived to what we'd consider normal. People in the 1800's and early 1900's worked in fields all day and most lived to their 70's and 80's.

My mom and grandmother both baked themselves dark brown all their lives, going to the beach every day. Mom is now 90 and looks 75 with nary a wrinkle. Genes off course, but 50 years ago nobody heard of sunscreen and in fact made things worse by using Baby Oil.

Oh cmon this thread is like an antivaxer blog. The average lifespan of Anyone in 1850 was just 45 years old even if they had a cushy job inside all day.

 

[timo2]

Superman also depended upon the sun for his powers. But he lived in Kansas and then presumably NYC, both in low vitamin D areas?

 

[RAE]

Yes, the AHA and the food pyramid (if it's still used and understood) are trustworthy. The work has already been done to identify trustworthy sources. -- a "Dr." in front of a name, especially a bunch of doctors hired to head an agency specializing in a particular subject, quoted in conventional media HUGELY outweighs some non-physician blogger attempting to review the literature.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the AHA. Here's an article about where most of their funding comes from:

https://truthout.org/articles/the-american-heart-association-protecting-industry-not-patients/

And with regard to blindly following the advice of anyone with a "Dr." in front of their name - good luck with that. Most traditional physicians receive basically zero education in nutrition and health during their medical training - yet we expect them to be experts in nutrition. Does that make sense to you? Some physicians, though, are actually are interested in nutrition, and seek additional training/information on the subject after they become physicians. Those physicians are the ones I seek out and listen to. Here is one example of such a physician -Dr. Colin Champ is an oncologist at the Univ. of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who has done considerable research on the subject of diet/nutrition and cancer. He's a smart guy, but his advice about nutrition (based on his research, and other research he has reviewed) sometimes runs contrary to the traditional advice from AHA and others. So if you believe everything AHA has to say, you will probably disregard Dr. Champ's advice also, and that's your choice. But keep in mind that not everyone with a "Dr." in front of their name believes the same things, when it comes to nutrition and health.

Colin Champ - Passionate about your health

 

[audreyh1]

This guy took Vitamin D supplements to the extreme and it led to severe kidney damage.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408114319.htm

My understanding is that 10,000 IU of Vitamin D3 daily is not considered an extreme dose at all, but rather the top range of what is considered a safe dose. And at least 5,000 IU daily is often recommended for people with low Vitamin D. So I don't get the blood calcium problem.

 

[audreyh1]

It's a balance, right? A balance between the good vitamin D, and the bad exposure. I made some fun about my current life at 36, but in all seriousness, I lived at 26 for a while and I can tell you it is brutal for a fair skinned person. I'm paying for it today with removals of AK lesions, and a constant awareness of my skin.

But here's the weird thing, FOOT melanoma is fairly common and deadly. Why? Why isn't "wrist" melanoma common? Most of the time our feet are covered. And dark skinned people get melanoma in the feet too (Bob Marley, for example).

I had a good friend die at age 50 from what they thought was foot melanoma. His first symptom was swelling in the groin. It was way too late by then. The pathologist said it was melanoma, yet he and his doctors never found the actual original lesion. They just assume it was his foot, because that is a fairly common hidden source.

My understanding is that many cases of melanoma are located with there is no or minimal sun exposure.

 

[Lsbcal]

Here’s more health related news that might be gobbly-gook or another case of the experts jumping to conclusions thanks to bad science. Time will tell.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science

“These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above.”

What are the author’s credentials? Is this a respected publication? Why should I believe it is worth reading?

 

[joeea]

What are the author’s credentials? Is this a respected publication? Why should I believe it is worth reading?

Bio | Rowan Jacobsen

 

[Lsbcal]

OK, thanks.

I will still use some sun screen on my face and wear a hat (thin hair nowadays).

 

[tmm99]

This site is fun and surprising:

https://fastrt.nilu.no/VitD-ez_quartMED.html

It calculates how much sun exposure you need for a healthy dose of Vitamin D.

Have you noticed that regardless of sun exposure, you cannot get enough Vitamin D in the winter months in higher latitude? I get UVB via tanning bed living in Canada during winter (one 7 to 8-minute session every week or every 10 days for most weeks and I cover my face and hands to avoid sun-related wrinkles... I get slightly tanned from it. My legs are tanned about the same level as at the end of summer playing beach vball once a week.). I do feel the difference (mood) which I never did from oral Vit-D supplementation.

 

[flintnational]

Each species is exquisitely adapted to its environment. As an example, the cardinal searches outdoors all day for seeds, worms and insects. Clearly he has evolved to have a high activity level, be outdoors and eat seeds and insects.

On the other hand, humans have evolved to stay indoors, sit on the sofa and eat pizza and drink soda.

 

[Dtail]

Going out at 6pm to get 2 hours of Vitamin D while playing Pickleball.

 

[Boho]

And with regard to blindly following the advice of anyone with a "Dr." in front of their name - good luck with that.

Not blindly. I use kind of a point system. When it's a Dr. or government agency vs something like the truthout website, game over. With any luck I'll avoid even overhearing what truthout says. 60 Minutes maybe, but not truthout.

I used to listen to Gary Null, an extreme nutritionist on public radio. I used to believe him pretty much but one day I was in a medical library and had a chance to check up on one of his references. He'd always complain that doctors say "the article doesn't say that." Well, the one I looked up "didn't say that" either. I eventually had a list of things I hated about him and emailed it to his station when there was a campaign to keep him on the air. I wanted him off.

 

[RAE]

Not blindly. I use kind of a point system. When it's a Dr. or government agency vs something like the truthout website, game over. With any luck I'll avoid even overhearing what truthout says. 60 Minutes maybe, but not truthout.

OK. But what about when a Physician offers advice that is directly contrary to what a govt. agency is providing........who do you believe then? I follow several the websites/blogs of several physicians who, based on their knowledge and research, feel that the traditional advice on diet/nutrition from government, and organizations like AHA, is deeply flawed. I mentioned Dr. Colin Champ (oncologist) as one of those, and I could name several others.......Dr. William Davis, Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr. David Perlmutter.......I could go on. How does your point system work in cases like that? Would you trust the diet/nutrition advice from a physician who received no training in those subject in med. school, over a physician who has spent years studying and researching those subjects after they received their medical degree? All of the physicians I have mentioned above fall into the latter category.
And yes, I know that there are some physicians out there who have studied nutrition after they received their medical degrees who continue to preach the traditional, AHA/USDA advice on diet. Dr. Walter Willett is an example. My basic point, though, is that just because someone has a "Dr." in front of their name is not a good reason to believe whatever comes out of their mouth (especially since you can get conflicting advice from physicians with essentially the same credentials). You need to do some critical thinking for yourself, and not simply trust the advice from anyone based solely on their credentials.

 

[Boho]

OK. But what about when a Physician offers advice that is directly contrary to what a govt. agency is providing.

Usually the government agency, but it depends. If it's a new study that was reported in a good newspaper and other physicians believe it's convincing, then it could be too new for a government agency to have reviewed and I may change my diet because of it.

I follow several the websites/blogs of several physicians who, based on their knowledge and research, feel that the traditional advice on diet/nutrition from government, and organizations like AHA, is deeply flawed...How does your point system work in cases like that?

The government and organizations win without me even researching unless it's reported in generally respected media and sounds worthy of my review.

 

[Boho]

I follow several the websites/blogs of several physicians who, based on their knowledge and research, feel that the traditional advice on diet/nutrition from government, and organizations like AHA, is deeply flawed...How does your point system work in cases like that?

The government and organizations win without me even researching unless it's reported in generally respected media and sounds worthy of my review.

I think there are exceptions here too. The government may say something generally favorable about an artificial ingredient or a chemical, and I may hear more detail somewhere else. It may be easy to avoid and I may not want to take a chance with it. But I've found some decent detail from government sources and I can't even give an example of when I went against the government. I think they're pretty good about saying when more information is needed. I think the say that about the new fire retardants in foam and about tooth whiteners, even though they're legal.

 

[TromboneAl]

My understanding is that many cases of melanoma are located with there is no or minimal sun exposure.

You mean ... where the sun don't shine? OMG!