Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2019, 05:26 PM   #41
Moderator
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Flyover country
Posts: 25,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAE View Post
Except during the summer months, the skin makes little if any vitamin D from the sun at latitudes above 37 degrees north
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAE View Post
in Boston at 42° North essentially no vitamin D3 can be produced in the skin from November through February.
Not quite the same thing.
__________________
I thought growing old would take longer.
braumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-10-2019, 06:03 PM   #42
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RAE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by braumeister View Post
Not quite the same thing.

True, but the basic point is that you are not going to get a whole lot of Vitamin D from the sun for several months of the year if you live in northern latitudes. If you are unsure just how much you are getting, have a Vit. D blood test done, and then you'll know where you stand, and whether you need to take any action to boost your levels.
RAE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 06:16 PM   #43
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Boho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,844
Still, your chances of getting Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC - the most commonly occurring cancer type in the Caucasian population) generally increase with latitude (according to the below article), despite the extra vitamin D you're getting. It sounds like only melanoma skin cancer (MSC) can be prevented with good vitamin D synthesis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5431270/

Quote:
An inverse association was observed between NMSC and latitude in males and females, as observed at 18°S in Arica and 36°S in Concepción (Fig. 2C); thus rates decreased as latitude increased...

It can be concluded from these studies that there is a direct correlation between NMSC rates and mortality with UVB radiation, meaning that this type of cancer would not depend on vitamin D synthesis and therefore on calcium uptake; by contrast, MSC rates increased with decreased levels of vitamin D and thus calcium uptake in all cities, with the only exception being Punta Arenas.
But:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689397/

Quote:
Results: Recreational sun exposure was a risk factor for melanoma on the trunk (pOR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.4–2.2) and limbs (pOR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1–1.7), but not head and neck (pOR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8–1.4), across latitudes. Occupational sun exposure was associated with risk of melanoma on the head and neck at low latitudes (pOR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0–3.0). Total sun exposure was associated with increased risk of melanoma on the limbs at low latitudes (pOR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0–2.2), but not at other body sites or other latitudes.
Boho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 07:04 PM   #44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Boho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boho View Post
Still, your chances of getting Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC - the most commonly occurring cancer type in the Caucasian population) generally increase with latitude (according to the below article), despite the extra vitamin D you're getting.
Wait, I think got part of that backwards...the article is what I mean, not my words.
Boho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 07:06 PM   #45
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RAE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boho View Post
Still, your chances of getting Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC - the most commonly occurring cancer type in the Caucasian population) generally increase with latitude (according to the below article), despite the extra vitamin D you're getting. It sounds like only melanoma skin cancer (MSC) can be prevented with good vitamin D synthesis.
Yes, but nonmelanoma skin cancer is MUCH less life-threatening than melanoma. 75% of NMSC cases are basal cell carcinomas, which rarely if ever spread (metastasize) to other parts of the body. The other 25% are typically squamous cell carcinoma, which can infrequently metastasize, but it's still far less serious than melanoma. Melanoma is the skin cancer that is most likely to kill you, as it is much more likely to metastasize, making treatment difficult.

Of course, no one wants to develop either type of skin cancer, but since there is some evidence that getting adequate sun exposure (without burning the skin), and the Vitamin D you are getting from that sun exposure, actually decreases your chances of developing melanoma, I certainly have no concerns about getting a reasonable amount of sun exposure.
RAE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:35 PM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,358
I've always been wary of chemicals and wanted to get vitamin D naturally so avoided sunscreen most of my life. I'd only use it on myself and our kids when they were younger if we went some place like snorkeling in Hawaii in winter so so we could be out all day without getting burned.
__________________
Even clouds seem bright and breezy, 'Cause the livin' is free and easy, See the rat race in a new way, Like you're wakin' up to a new day (Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether lyrics, Alan Parsons Project, based on an EA Poe story)
daylatedollarshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:56 PM   #47
Moderator
Jerry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,100
I’m in the camp of using sun screen mainly to prevent burning. Main activity I use sunscreen for is golf. Otherwise, I just wear a hat and sometimes long sleeves. As for burning, being from Michigan, when I go to see my brother in Florida, I wear sunscreen most of the time. That sun is much different than our Michigan sun and I don’t want to ruin a trip by getting sunburn. I did that once. Once was more than enough.
__________________
Every day when I open my eyes now it feels like a Saturday - David Gray
Jerry1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 04:42 AM   #48
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
JoeWras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAE View Post
According to Harvard Medical School, you basically can't get any Vitamin D from the sun above the 37th parallel, except during the summer months.
Thank goodness I'm at 36 degrees. I'm safe. Yippee!
JoeWras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 04:55 AM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
JoeWras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boho View Post
Still, your chances of getting Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC - the most commonly occurring cancer type in the Caucasian population) generally increase with latitude (according to the below article), despite the extra vitamin D you're getting. It sounds like only melanoma skin cancer (MSC) can be prevented with good vitamin D synthesis.
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.
JoeWras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 06:42 AM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: the prairies
Posts: 5,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by braumeister View Post
Even that says there is only a partial issue above 52 degrees (a long way from 37).

Also see https://www.westonaprice.org/vitamin...de-hypothesis/

I'm not saying the claim is entirely wrong; just that it seems extremely far-fetched.
And of course, many of us who live up north make up for the lack of sun exposure in winter by getting a lot of it in summer during our 14 - 16 hour days.

In the long run most of us probably get enough and it's likely not very different from those who avoid the sun during the brutally hot and humid summer months in the south.
Music Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 08:48 AM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
zinger1457's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,222
This guy took Vitamin D supplements to the extreme and it led to severe kidney damage.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0408114319.htm


Quote:
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 ˝ 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.
zinger1457 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 09:10 AM   #52
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rianne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Champaign
Posts: 4,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinger1457 View Post
This guy took Vitamin D supplements to the extreme and it led to severe kidney damage.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0408114319.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.
__________________
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

Ralph Waldo Emerson
Rianne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 11:10 AM   #53
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 106
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 11:36 AM   #54
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 106
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...
Smitty700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2019, 09:29 PM   #55
Recycles dryer sheets
NoMoreJob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
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.
NoMoreJob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 06:03 AM   #56
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boho View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 06:07 AM   #57
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty700 View Post
outdoor workers who typically get more sun than indoor workers get melanoma at half the indoor workers' rate.
https://www.politifact.com/oregon/st...lanoma-despit/

Quote:
My conclusion? Don't worry about the sun.
Hmm...
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 06:50 AM   #58
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RAE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boho View Post
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.
RAE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 06:40 PM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Boho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAE View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Boho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 06:57 PM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Al in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
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.
__________________
Ohio REFI PE ENG and Investor as of 2016
Al in Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it Better to Wear Dark or Light Colored Clothes in the Sunshine? easysurfer Health and Early Retirement 20 06-18-2018 06:20 PM
They're millionaires, and they get Obamacare subsidies UtahSkier FIRE Related Public Policy 32 01-28-2016 11:22 AM
Why do we enjoy it when others are wrong, yet hate it when we're wrong? Midpack Other topics 28 06-22-2015 08:48 AM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:24 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.