Vitamin D is the new vitamin C.
And apparently, rightly so. It is more useful to us.
And apparently, rightly so. It is more useful to us.
Low Vitamin D Levels in our Bodies
- Thread starter Turk
- Start date
- Status
I was just reading an article that discussed various vitamins and supplements. Regarding vitamin D, they wrote:
Quote:
A deficiency is bad for your body, but taking a D supplement can be worse - the pill form of the vitamin has been linked to prostate and pancreatic cancers in men. Instead, watch your weight (losing 5 to 10 percent of your body weight can increase levels by 34 percent), eat more D-rich foods, and get more sun.
Then again, the article wasn't written in a medical journal and I'm not sure of the author's credentials, so take it for what it's worth.
Quote:
A deficiency is bad for your body, but taking a D supplement can be worse - the pill form of the vitamin has been linked to prostate and pancreatic cancers in men. Instead, watch your weight (losing 5 to 10 percent of your body weight can increase levels by 34 percent), eat more D-rich foods, and get more sun.
Then again, the article wasn't written in a medical journal and I'm not sure of the author's credentials, so take it for what it's worth.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I was just reading an article that discussed various vitamins and supplements. Regarding vitamin D, they wrote:
Quote:
A deficiency is bad for your body, but taking a D supplement can be worse - the pill form of the vitamin has been linked to prostate and pancreatic cancers in men. Instead, watch your weight (losing 5 to 10 percent of your body weight can increase levels by 34 percent), eat more D-rich foods, and get more sun.
Then again, the article wasn't written in a medical journal and I'm not sure of the author's credentials, so take it for what it's worth.
Did the article say how they determined this?
I was just reading an article that discussed various vitamins and supplements. Regarding vitamin D, they wrote:
Quote:
A deficiency is bad for your body, but taking a D supplement can be worse - the pill form of the vitamin has been linked to prostate and pancreatic cancers in men. Instead, watch your weight (losing 5 to 10 percent of your body weight can increase levels by 34 percent), eat more D-rich foods, and get more sun.
Then again, the article wasn't written in a medical journal and I'm not sure of the author's credentials, so take it for what it's worth.
Did the article say how they determined this?
Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Did the article say how they determined this?
Nope. Google found this:
http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/opvitD.html#cancer
Then again, NCI (National Cancer Institute) does not recommend for or against the use of vitamin D supplements to reduce the risk of colorectal or any other type of cancer:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/vitamin-D
Did the article say how they determined this?
Nope. Google found this:
http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/opvitD.html#cancer
Then again, NCI (National Cancer Institute) does not recommend for or against the use of vitamin D supplements to reduce the risk of colorectal or any other type of cancer:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/vitamin-D
Interesting info. I've never been tested for actual levels, but I have friends (late 20's/early 30's) who've tested low. It's hard to get a decent amount of sun around here when you can only really sit outside about 4 months out of the year.
Originally Posted By: Patman
I take vitamin D every day, plus in the warm weather I also spend a lot of time outside in the sun. Despite what the media has led us to believe, being out in the sun without sunscreen is not bad for you! Where it gets bad is if you get sunburned a lot. But if you stay outside in the sun for a little bit of time every day without sunscreen, you'll get the vitamin D your body needs. Vitamin D has a ton of benefits such as lowering blood pressure, preventing some types of cancers, lowering the chance of heart disease, and promoting strong bones.
That's why even my kids don't get sun screen, unless they will be out all day, or it's scorching outside. What really gets me is all the fuss about sanitization that seems to be started by Lysol. Why on Earth do I need to spray chemicals in my house to kill harmless germs? No wonder people have all sorts of allergies and weak immune systems.
I take vitamin D every day, plus in the warm weather I also spend a lot of time outside in the sun. Despite what the media has led us to believe, being out in the sun without sunscreen is not bad for you! Where it gets bad is if you get sunburned a lot. But if you stay outside in the sun for a little bit of time every day without sunscreen, you'll get the vitamin D your body needs. Vitamin D has a ton of benefits such as lowering blood pressure, preventing some types of cancers, lowering the chance of heart disease, and promoting strong bones.
That's why even my kids don't get sun screen, unless they will be out all day, or it's scorching outside. What really gets me is all the fuss about sanitization that seems to be started by Lysol. Why on Earth do I need to spray chemicals in my house to kill harmless germs? No wonder people have all sorts of allergies and weak immune systems.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I was just reading an article that discussed various vitamins and supplements. Regarding vitamin D, they wrote:
Quote:
A deficiency is bad for your body, but taking a D supplement can be worse - the pill form of the vitamin has been linked to prostate and pancreatic cancers in men. Instead, watch your weight (losing 5 to 10 percent of your body weight can increase levels by 34 percent), eat more D-rich foods, and get more sun.
Then again, the article wasn't written in a medical journal and I'm not sure of the author's credentials, so take it for what it's worth.
D is shown to help with colon cancer.
I was just reading an article that discussed various vitamins and supplements. Regarding vitamin D, they wrote:
Quote:
A deficiency is bad for your body, but taking a D supplement can be worse - the pill form of the vitamin has been linked to prostate and pancreatic cancers in men. Instead, watch your weight (losing 5 to 10 percent of your body weight can increase levels by 34 percent), eat more D-rich foods, and get more sun.
Then again, the article wasn't written in a medical journal and I'm not sure of the author's credentials, so take it for what it's worth.
D is shown to help with colon cancer.
Can I post on BITOG from a lawnchair at my house?
Along with a cocktail
Along with a cocktail
All this talk of 600iu vs 4000iu and the RDA of VitD.... Remember, the body doesn't absorb everything that you put into it.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
That's why even my kids don't get sun screen, unless they will be out all day, or it's scorching outside.
I personally think you are making a big mistake here my friend. UVA and UVB contribute heavily to the incidence of Melanoma and Younger people
I have had more than a dozen incidences of Basal skin cancer. I have done my homework.
That's why even my kids don't get sun screen, unless they will be out all day, or it's scorching outside.
I personally think you are making a big mistake here my friend. UVA and UVB contribute heavily to the incidence of Melanoma and Younger people
I have had more than a dozen incidences of Basal skin cancer. I have done my homework.
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
All this talk of 600iu vs 4000iu and the RDA of VitD.... Remember, the body doesn't absorb everything that you put into it.
Better bump it up to 50000000000000iu!
In all honesty, your body will better absorb vitamins and minerals from natural sources rather then synthetic substances, so even though things like fish might have stated lower levels of vitamin D, your body might be able to absorb more of it than from a pill.
All this talk of 600iu vs 4000iu and the RDA of VitD.... Remember, the body doesn't absorb everything that you put into it.
Better bump it up to 50000000000000iu!
In all honesty, your body will better absorb vitamins and minerals from natural sources rather then synthetic substances, so even though things like fish might have stated lower levels of vitamin D, your body might be able to absorb more of it than from a pill.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
In all honesty, your body will better absorb vitamins and minerals from natural sources rather then synthetic substances, so even though things like fish might have stated lower levels of vitamin D, your body might be able to absorb more of it than from a pill.
I am not a huge fan of over dosing with vitamins..although I take a daily pill that has all the vitamins and minerals in there.
Vitamin D as pointed out is available from sun and some fish. It probably is the one vitamin that most people are very deficient in.
I eat a can of tuna every other day and that gives me ouly 20% of my 'D'
I think a vitamin D supplement is mandatory
In all honesty, your body will better absorb vitamins and minerals from natural sources rather then synthetic substances, so even though things like fish might have stated lower levels of vitamin D, your body might be able to absorb more of it than from a pill.
I am not a huge fan of over dosing with vitamins..although I take a daily pill that has all the vitamins and minerals in there.
Vitamin D as pointed out is available from sun and some fish. It probably is the one vitamin that most people are very deficient in.
I eat a can of tuna every other day and that gives me ouly 20% of my 'D'
I think a vitamin D supplement is mandatory
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
That's why even my kids don't get sun screen, unless they will be out all day, or it's scorching outside.
I personally think you are making a big mistake here my friend. UVA and UVB contribute heavily to the incidence of Melanoma and Younger people
I have had more than a dozen incidences of Basal skin cancer. I have done my homework.
I probably should've been more clear. If my kids are out out all day or the UV index is really high with no clouds, they get the sun screen and wear hats. But most of the time my they play outside in the morning or late afternoon when the sun is weak, so clothes and head cover provide plenty of protection.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
That's why even my kids don't get sun screen, unless they will be out all day, or it's scorching outside.
I personally think you are making a big mistake here my friend. UVA and UVB contribute heavily to the incidence of Melanoma and Younger people
I have had more than a dozen incidences of Basal skin cancer. I have done my homework.
I probably should've been more clear. If my kids are out out all day or the UV index is really high with no clouds, they get the sun screen and wear hats. But most of the time my they play outside in the morning or late afternoon when the sun is weak, so clothes and head cover provide plenty of protection.
C'mon Al. You're parroting the party line re: sunscreens.
So what. The sun hasn't been here until 30 years ago? My grandad was a farmer and spent his entire life in the Florida sun. No melanoma, he died at 84.
If you look at the data it's plain that it isn't just the sun that's causing skin cancer.
So what. The sun hasn't been here until 30 years ago? My grandad was a farmer and spent his entire life in the Florida sun. No melanoma, he died at 84.
If you look at the data it's plain that it isn't just the sun that's causing skin cancer.
Interestingly, Vit D levels are strongly associated with the recurrence rate of Melanoma.
Oz is skin cancer capital of the world, and I don't buy the traditional line on melanoma.
Skin cancers show up where there's obvious and repeated sun damage, melanomas tend not to.
Know of 3 melanomas in people I know, and none were in traditionally sun affected areas. When the specialist was asked in one instance how the sun theory could explain a primary melanoma in a labial fold, he mumbled something about sun exposure as a child.
That being said, our children get heaps of sun, always with a hat, and have never been allowed to burn, through either timing of activities (they don't want to play in 100F heat anyway), or zinc based sunscreen as appropriate.
Oz is skin cancer capital of the world, and I don't buy the traditional line on melanoma.
Skin cancers show up where there's obvious and repeated sun damage, melanomas tend not to.
Know of 3 melanomas in people I know, and none were in traditionally sun affected areas. When the specialist was asked in one instance how the sun theory could explain a primary melanoma in a labial fold, he mumbled something about sun exposure as a child.
That being said, our children get heaps of sun, always with a hat, and have never been allowed to burn, through either timing of activities (they don't want to play in 100F heat anyway), or zinc based sunscreen as appropriate.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
C'mon Al. You're parroting the party line re: sunscreens.
So what. The sun hasn't been here until 30 years ago? My grandad was a farmer and spent his entire life in the Florida sun. No melanoma, he died at 84.
If you look at the data it's plain that it isn't just the sun that's causing skin cancer.
One person not getting melanoma is not a sample. It takes at least 30 "sample statistics" to predict a "Population Proportion"
And no disrespect but Dermatologiss would disagree that sun does not significantly increase Melanoma or that Melanoma is not getting worse. One sunburn before the age of 12 increases the likelihood of a Melanoma by over 50%. I get my information from Dermatologists due to my frequent Basal cell cancers. Believe what you want.
C'mon Al. You're parroting the party line re: sunscreens.
So what. The sun hasn't been here until 30 years ago? My grandad was a farmer and spent his entire life in the Florida sun. No melanoma, he died at 84.
If you look at the data it's plain that it isn't just the sun that's causing skin cancer.
One person not getting melanoma is not a sample. It takes at least 30 "sample statistics" to predict a "Population Proportion"
And no disrespect but Dermatologiss would disagree that sun does not significantly increase Melanoma or that Melanoma is not getting worse. One sunburn before the age of 12 increases the likelihood of a Melanoma by over 50%. I get my information from Dermatologists due to my frequent Basal cell cancers. Believe what you want.
Last edited:
Seeing the sun bathers who look a lot older than they really are around here is definitely a reason to wear sunscreen. UV damages collagen or something like that under your skin.
Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Seeing the sun bathers who look a lot older than they really are around here is definitely a reason to wear sunscreen.
Just bc their skin looks like leather?
Seeing the sun bathers who look a lot older than they really are around here is definitely a reason to wear sunscreen.
Just bc their skin looks like leather?
My brother was recently diagnosed with adult onset rickets.
He has had leg problems for years (weakness, instability, pain).
He now takes D supplements and it has helped.
No, he doesn't have bowed legs!
He has had leg problems for years (weakness, instability, pain).
He now takes D supplements and it has helped.
No, he doesn't have bowed legs!
This is a great thread!!
I have been reading about Vitamin D for years and taking between 1000-10,000 IU per day unless I get at least 30 minutes of sun, WITHOUT SUNSCREEN. I have been trying to get all of my family members on this boat and some have but others have not. Since I started taking D3 supplements I have had my blood measured and the maximum I can get to is 60ng/L. My goal is 60-90ng/L. Do believe you can get enough D from food intake. You must get out in the sun or take a straight supplement. Be sure and have your levels checked when you go to the doctor.
Another vitamin you should consider if taking more than 2,000 IU per day is vitamin K. I take a vitamin K supplement that supplies two forms of K2, menaquinon-7 & menaqunone-4 along with the standard K1. I believe in a few more years vitamin K will be getting as much attention as D is right now.
Rod
I have been reading about Vitamin D for years and taking between 1000-10,000 IU per day unless I get at least 30 minutes of sun, WITHOUT SUNSCREEN. I have been trying to get all of my family members on this boat and some have but others have not. Since I started taking D3 supplements I have had my blood measured and the maximum I can get to is 60ng/L. My goal is 60-90ng/L. Do believe you can get enough D from food intake. You must get out in the sun or take a straight supplement. Be sure and have your levels checked when you go to the doctor.
Another vitamin you should consider if taking more than 2,000 IU per day is vitamin K. I take a vitamin K supplement that supplies two forms of K2, menaquinon-7 & menaqunone-4 along with the standard K1. I believe in a few more years vitamin K will be getting as much attention as D is right now.
Rod
- Status
Similar threads
