13 ms·

What Do You Lack? Probably Vitamin D

175 points by robg 16y ago

tocomment 16y ago
I started taking 1400 IU per day a few months ago and I don't feel any different :-( So I'm left wondering, did I not need it, or am I not taking enough.
- neilc 16y ago
  The easy way to check that is to get your level of vitamin D (25-OHD in a blood test) tested by your doctor.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Vitamin D via sun, meats, or supplementation is likely beneficial even if you don't "feel" any difference. But also, most pro-vitamin-D sources suggest 2000IU or more per day -- sometimes much more, though traditionally there was thought to be toxicity risks at very high doses.
  - tocomment 16y ago
    I assumed too high a dose was dangerous. Is that not true?
    - gojomo 16y ago
      At some point, yes. But as the linked article notes -- and as someone concerned about this enough to take a supplement and ask a question, you did read the article, right? -- adults have taken 10,000IU/day for 6 months with no ill effects, and 50,000IU/week is usual for people with a diagnosed deficiency until it's cured. So as for everything else, the dose makes the poison, but typical official recommendations (1000IU/day and lower) seem to be a fraction of what's best and a tiny fraction of what's safe.
- robg 16y ago
  It also depends on the form. As others here note, Vit D is fat soluble so gel caps are much better. 1400 IU may not be enough especially if it's a pill. I take a 5000 IU gel cap most days. Still, if you haven't been tested, you should. It's easy and inexpensive.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Maybe you weren't deficient? I had a blood test that said I was deficient, after taking about 4000IU of vitamin D a day for a long time (years). I upped the dose to 10,000-12,000IU, and I feel the same, but the blood test comes back as not deficient. Interestingly, a strong immune system is not always good. I am allergic to everything. (But that problem is solved with immunotherapy.)
jlcgull 16y ago
More truth than hype in this case. The modern indoor lifestyle and diet are not very conducive to maintaining the requisite levels. Vitamin D comes in many forms -- and not all are equal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol
- robg 16y ago
  Indeed. The D3 form is one you want. I actually had a endocrinologist prescribe the D2 form. Luckily my nutritionist has been following the literature for years.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Both forms are suffiecient to cure rickets.
    - dgordon 16y ago
      And that incredibly low standard is also how the FDA set the "recommended daily allowance." Similar things are true for most other vitamins and minerals, as I recall. Also, D2 causes overdose effects pretty easily, but you can take big multiples of the "RDA" in D3 (I think 10,000 IU/day for months for vitamin D deficiency has been mentioned) for quite a while without overdosing.
      - carbocation 16y ago
        > you can take big multiples of the "RDA" in D3 (I think 10,000 IU/day for months for vitamin D deficiency has been mentioned) for quite a while without overdosing. That's actually a problem, as people can become accustomed to taking large doses and then not understand why problems are occurring when they start way down the road.
jackfoxy 16y ago
Just from my own experience, I started taking vitamin D supplements during the winter months (roughly from equinox to equinox) 3 winters ago, and it seems like my immune system has vastly improved. The number of colds and flus I was subject to fell from about 3 per season to 1 the first season and zero the next two (knock on wood).
- prat 16y ago
  This is just my experience, but I noticed that I used to have flu every 3-4 month between the age of 18 to 22 and then it suddenly stopped. I didn't take any supplements for this to happen, just graduated from college. I am not sure if it was the hormonal changes or change of environment or just plain growing up, but I'd think twice before attributing it to supplements.
  - jackfoxy 16y ago
    Correct, this is only anecdotal "evidence". It's hard enough even for professionals to do controlled medical studies. However, my work environment has not changed at all, and my colleagues continue to get as sick as ever.
  - ruang 16y ago
    You probably developed immunity to the most common viruses after having exposure to them earlier on. The same thing happened with me after growing up in the Midwest winters.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- robg 16y ago
  I used to get symptoms associated with Seasonal Affective Disorder every winter. Now for two winters straight the Vitamin D supplements have minimized those symptoms.
  - alaithea 16y ago
    During my second winter in Portland, OR, I started to feel chronically tired and nearly unable to wake up each morning, no matter how much sleep I had had. Once I realized something was wrong, I started Vitamin D supplements and within a day or two, I felt like a brand new person. It was really dramatic. Since then, I take them every year during the colder months.
bhousel 16y ago
I first heard about this last year after elite marathoner Deena Kastor found that she had a Vitamin D deficiency. She ended up breaking a bone in the Beijing Olympics. It turned out that she had plenty of calcium, but was deficient in Vitamin D from overusing sunscreen. http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=16940 http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=16940 Luckily the solution for most of us is to just go outside for 15 minutes and enjoy the sun!
hugh3 16y ago
As far as I can see, you'd have to have a pretty screwy sort of lifestyle, or an obsessive use of sunscreen, to not achieve this recommendation: Dr. Holick suggests going outside in summer unprotected by sunscreen (except for the face, which should always be protected) wearing minimal clothing ... two or three times a week for 5 to 10 minutes I'm pretty confident that I'm not going to suffer from Vitamin D deficiency. (Skin cancer maybe...)
- doug_m 16y ago
  I guess you don't live in Scotland. We'd call 5 to 10 minutes of sun 2 or 3 times a week a heatwave.
  - latentflip 16y ago
    I had no idea there were so many Scots around here. I guess all this talk of weather brings us out.
- warpwoof 16y ago
  Do you live on the beach? Seriously, I can't think of any of my friends who regularly spend time outside with their shirt off each week, which I'm pretty sure is what is meant by "minimal clothing."
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I'm assuming that thirty minutes in short sleeves is as good as five minutes with your shirt off.
    - warpwoof 16y ago
      I think that's a bit of an underestimate. Short sleeves basically expose only the skin on the top of your arm from the elbow down. That's a lot less surface area compared to your full front and back, shoulders, and neck. Your chest/shoulders/upper back will also be receiving direct, unbroken sunlight, while your arms are probably blocked a good deal when they are at your side by shadows. If it were that easy I don't think deficiency would be so prevalent. I agree that it's almost impossible not to get 30 min of partial exposure.
jsdalton 16y ago
Are Vitamin D supplements and Vitamin D obtained from the sun the same thing? What I mean is, are supplements good enough, or is sun exposure really required?
- robg 16y ago
  Scientifically, that seems to be a tough question to answer. But it's probably better if your body makes it because it will be more easily usable. You only need 15 mins of direct sun exposure to produce more than enough for your daily requirements. The problem is my body has stopped producing Vitamin D. We've tried kick starting the system with the 50,000 IU dose and it barely moved my levels. Of course, the sun is also free (unless you worry that 15 mins/day can cause cancer) while if you buy supplements you'd want the high quality ones and preferably in a fatty medium for easier absorption. The D3 form is more easily converted by the body into an active form.
  - adammichaelc 16y ago
    "you only need 15 minutes" It's important to qualify that this is only true of people with lower levels of melanin (ie white people). For Hispanics and Asians/Indians the number is probably closer to 60 minutes, and for those of African descent the number is closer to 120 minutes.
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      That's evolution in action, folks. Just look at where each ethnicity originates from, and it makes perfect sense. When you live in northern Europe, you may not get much sun, and have to make the most of it.
      - arethuza 16y ago
        I'm in Scotland, what is this "sun" thing you speak of?
        16y ago
NathanKP 16y ago
The article recommends: Asked for a general recommendation, Dr. Holick suggests going outside in summer unprotected by sunscreen (except for the face, which should always be protected) wearing minimal clothing from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. two or three times a week for 5 to 10 minutes. Slathering skin with sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will reduce exposure to ultraviolet-B rays by 95 to 98 percent. But if you make enough vitamin D in your skin in summer, it can meet the body’s needs for the rest of the year, Dr. Holick said. Personally I'd rather take a supplement than risk skin cancer later in life from sun exposure. There is definitely a tradeoff between the natural technique of acquiring vitamin D and the safe way. Getting vitamin D via sunlight on the skin was safer when we had more ozone and fewer ultraviolet rays.
- mrduncan 16y ago
  Does 5-10 minutes 2-3 times per week actually represent a significant cancer risk?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Just in case that wasn't a rhetorical question, no. Skin cancer is as much a pre-disposition affair as it is induced by UV radiation, and people with far higher exposure levels are still not at a significant risk for skin cancer unless their genetic make-up is such that they are very prone to contracting it. If you have extremely light skin, have freckles (especially darker ones), have red hair or if there is a history of skin cancer in your family better be careful though. Otherwise, enjoy the sun but don't overdo it.
    - mrduncan 16y ago
      Bad phrasing on my part, it was a serious question. It seems to me that a few minutes in the sun every couple of days would be very unlikely to have any long term impacts (obviously, I'm not an expert though).
  - aw3c2 16y ago
    If that was the case then humanity would be doomed. The sun is good and we need it. Just not too much.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mhd 16y ago
So Baz Luhrmann was wrong?
robg 16y ago
I posted this because I've been deficient for over a year and half now. It seems my body has stopped producing Vitamin D. I was on supplements for 8 months then went hiking for three weeks and off supplements. I came back and my levels had actually dropped. In my case the supplements have literally changed my life. I sleep better, I don't get mid-afternoon drowsiness any more (which I had for years), and my wife can predict whether I've been taking my supplements based on my mood. EDIT: I should have mentioned that the blood test is extremely easy and inexpensive. Though try to avoid Quest Labs as there have been reports that their results are not accurate for Vitamin D. I have little doubt that my grad school years - in the office before 9am and out after 7pm - hurt my skin's ability to make Vitamin D. I started having afternoon drowsiness then and for over five years. Within one day of starting the supplements it has completely gone away.
- carbocation 16y ago
  You got drowsy in grad school each afternoon, but now you're no longer drowsy and you take Vitamin D. Are you also no longer in grad school?
  - robg 16y ago
    It carried over for years after grad school even as I regularly got 7-8 hours of sleep. Quite literally, it was gone within one day of supplements (5,000 IU) and it has never come back. For me there couldn't be a stronger personal causation. One day it was there and for years, the next it was gone.
    - carbocation 16y ago
      Thanks for the follow-up. From your original post the timeline wasn't clear to me, but this helps clear it up.
      - robg 16y ago
        Sorry, I usually don't post comments because of how much context is lost. Part of the problem was trying to isolate the cause. I was in grad school for five years. In year two I started to notice the problem but I thought it was simply stress related. The solution was the futon in the office. I'd take an afternoon nap and then I was mostly good to go. During my post-doc I was less stressed but the problem remained. Only after my three year post-doc, a family member nutritionist literally looked at my eyes and said I was Vitamin D deficient. Sure enough, the results came back and I was badly deficient. 1.5 years of supplements later and I never take a afternoon nap.
alt219 16y ago
Speaking from personal experience, we found out our daughter was vitamin D deficient about a year ago, and she has subsequently been diagnosed with Type-1 Diabetes, as well as celiac disease. If it's possible that vitamin D deficiency and Type-1 Diabetes (and other autoimmune disorders) are linked, then I urge everyone to supplement their and their children's diets.
- carbocation 16y ago
  Those diseases may well be linked, but in reverse order. Vitamin D deficiency is caused by: 1. Reduced gut uptake of (fat-soluble) Vitamin D due to malabsorption. 2. Reduced renal hydroxylation of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 into 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. I can't speak to your daughter's specific problems, but since she has gut and, possibly, renal disease (given her diabetes), Vitamin D deficiency is quite possibly a consequence of those problems, and almost certainly not cause.
  - kragen 16y ago
    From the article: The rising incidence of Type 1 diabetes may be due, in part, to the current practice of protecting the young from sun exposure. When newborn infants in Finland were given 2,000 international units a day, Type 1 diabetes fell by 88 percent, Dr. Holick said. So I suspect that your statement, "vitamin D deficiency is ... of those problems [including type-1 diabetes mellitus] ... almost certainly not cause," is undermined by the evidence. Do you know of some problem with the study cited in the article?
    - carbocation 16y ago
      Thank you for disagreeing. The article was actually so sparse with the information that I misunderstood it for an epidemiological association. I went and found the study in pubmed, and I see that it's actually stronger than that - it's a cohort study with an intervention. It's not gold-standard, randomized-trial-level evidence, but it's still important. I'm still a bit skeptical, because the human genetic data, so far, doesn't back up the association between Vit D deficiency genes and T1D. Nevertheless, I'll revise my statement to agree that both (a) diabetes can cause a decrease in the hormonally active form of vitamin D, and (b) high-quality Grade B evidence suggests that the converse is also true. Nevertheless, I don't see Vitamin D deficiency as the unifying diagnosis here. One could even speculate that the Vit D deficiency was secondary, and the T1D was tertiary, but we really don't have enough information to speculate here and I'll stop now. I probably shouldn't have in the first place.
apower 16y ago
Nudist colony FTW.
- robg 16y ago
  Funny enough, my uncle suffered from bi-polar for decades before he died of heart disease. He became a nudist because he said sunshine helped him feel better.
adbge 16y ago
According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, sunscreen does not prevent vitamin D from being produced, at least at SPF 15. "There has been some concern that use of sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 results in vitamin D deficiency. However, a randomized trial in people over 40 years of age found that sunscreen use over the summer had no effect on 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels." Source: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm
- aw3c2 16y ago
  There are different kinds of sunscreen (physical and chemical) and of course different strengths. 15 would be considered low in my social group (young sailors).
powellc 16y ago
I'm just going to go ahead and comment here and say how much I hate newspapers trying to publish scientific information. I began raising my own pigs last year, and one of the things I get back from the slaughter house is about 20 pounds per pig of fatback and leaf lard. Do you know what the USDA has to say about the vitamin D content of pork lard? 2,800 IU per 100g. So, it seems as though our consumption of animal fat in the winter time helps to offset the fact that the sun in the great white north is so rare. It would also help explain why Inuit and other far northern cultures don't die of vitamin difficencies. (i.e., our bodies are extraordinary machines and have developed ways to function optimally without relying on a single source of any one nutrient) It is only when we shuffle the deck and start eating a tropical, fruit + veggie heavy diet, in January that all hell breaks loose. Of course, from everything I've read, it would also appear that pure corn-fed lard is so bad for you that the vitamin D doesn't matter. Best to eat pastured organic pork lard (oh, and plenty of fatty fish) in the winter time or move back to the equator.
- kingkawn 16y ago
  Pastured organic pork lard is substantially more likely to lead to trichinosis.
  - powellc 16y ago
    Hmmm. Unless you are just ripping the lard off the animals back, last time I checked trichinosis was the result of undercooking meat. Also, I should hope that the farmer is using some form of dewormer. There are plenty of proven organic herbal supplements you can give livestock that drastically reduce the parasite load of your average farm animal. I'm using a two-step wormwood-based dewormer and also supplement my animals' diets with garlic powder.
    - smallblacksun 16y ago
      > and also supplement my animals' diets with garlic powder. Sweet, garlic flavored pork!
    - kingkawn 16y ago
MikeCapone 16y ago
I take 4,000 UI of vitamin D3 in gelcaps (it's fat soluble, so much better absorbed than with dry tablets) each day. Been doing it for years. Make sure you get the gelcaps if you get supplements. Blood tests have shown that dry tablets are really badly absorbed, so that some people who think they might be taking enough supplements could still be deficient.
- tocomment 16y ago
  Intresting. Maybe that's why I haven't noticed anything.
  - MikeCapone 16y ago
    My reference for this is a series of post by a Dr. Davis, cardiologist, who blogs here: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ Check the archives for more.
- photon_off 16y ago
  The dry tablets are so much a combination of ineffective and popular that their deposits in water treatment plants is often a problem. Pretty crazy, right? http://healthnow.blogspot.com/2005/01/tons-of-vitamins-removed-from-sewage.html http://healthnow.blogspot.com/2005/01/tons-of-vitamins-remov...
russell 16y ago
I started using Vitamin D supplements after I read an article about a Dr. at Atascadero State Hospital. He noticed that some of his patients had low vitamin D. He started giving it to them all and got remarkable improvements. (Sorry I couldnt find the article. That article of others noted that the normal range for vitamin D tests is too low. Someone who is low normal is probably deficient. Vitamin D is not just for rickets. A deficiency can cause all kinds of other nonspecific problems.
lg 16y ago
I always prefer to take things these things the way they're found in nature, rather than isolated in a pill (bonus points if people have been taking them for a really long time with no ill effects). So I take cod liver oil instead of vitamin D supplements.
- ahn 16y ago
  Do you get the oil by sucking on an actual cod liver? Note that regular unrefined cod liver oil is very high in vitamin A, so you can kill yourself by drinking enough of it(see hypervitaminosis A). Vitamin A pills contain trivial amounts though(to stop people from killing themselves I am told), so the cod liver oil is a nice way to go if you feel that you need to supplement for some reason. And of course you also get the D, some nice fatty acids, and maybe a little mercury too.
  - gamache 16y ago
    Cod has minimal mercury. The fish with methylmercury issues tend to be large fish which live many years. Data: http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115644.htm http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformati...
- starkfist 16y ago
  The vitamin D in cod liver oil actually comes from the algae the cod eats, so a pill based on that algae is closer to it's original state than the oil.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jessep 16y ago
Vitamin D for the win. A close friend of mine was suffering from intense, debilitating balance problems for months and months, visited tons of doctors, and finally one of them said, "Your Vitamin D levels are really low. An italian can't really get enough sun living in San Francisco." He started taking Vitamin D and the problems largely went away.
semerda 16y ago
Thanks for the sharing the link - great read. I used to have inadequate levels of Vitamin D at 13 ng/ML and jumped on 50,000 IU supplements for 8 weeks and now am on 5000 IU every 2nd day. My Vitamin D levels are back into the healthy zone at 54 ng/ML and it has certainly made a massive difference in my well being and resistance to flu. I obviously had to blog about it since it's such a cheap and simple fix to your health. Hence why pharmaceutical companies won’t talk about it.. http://blog.ernestsemerda.com/2010/02/09/we-are-starving-our-bodies-of-vitamin-d-nature-has-a-cure/ http://blog.ernestsemerda.com/2010/02/09/we-are-starving-our...
msluyter 16y ago
Dr. William Davis, whom I follow for his cardiology related advice, also advocates taking vitamin D for optimum heart health. He notes that most people lose the ability to synthesize vitamin D as they age. Here's a typical post on the subject: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/getting-vitamin-d-right.html http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/getting-vitamin-d-... My own report is that after taking 6000IU/day of vitamin D, I rarely suffer from afternoon drowsiness, whereas before it was so bad I'd sometimes go take a nap in in my car in 90+ degree heat around 3pm.
- Femur 16y ago
  I also am a follower of Dr. Davis' very interesting blog.
nasalter 16y ago
Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte dedicated an episode of Security Now to Vitamin D, which I found very informative... TWiT link: http://www.twit.tv/sn209 http://www.twit.tv/sn209 Transcript: http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.htm http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.htm Steve Gibson's dedicated Vitamin D page: http://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm http://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm
code_duck 16y ago
Do sunlamps work?
pizza_ 16y ago
down here in my mom's basement i have replaced the lights with tanning lamps for just this reason.
katl 16y ago
.
parbo 16y ago
In Sweden, all small children are given vitamin D supplements. Only 400 IU per day though.

175 points by robg 16y ago

I started taking 1400 IU per day a few months ago and I don't feel any different :-( So I'm left wondering, did I not need it, or am I not taking enough.

neilc 16y ago
The easy way to check that is to get your level of vitamin D (25-OHD in a blood test) tested by your doctor.
gojomo 16y ago
Vitamin D via sun, meats, or supplementation is likely beneficial even if you don't "feel" any difference. But also, most pro-vitamin-D sources suggest 2000IU or more per day -- sometimes much more, though traditionally there was thought to be toxicity risks at very high doses.
- tocomment 16y ago
  I assumed too high a dose was dangerous. Is that not true?
  - gojomo 16y ago
    At some point, yes. But as the linked article notes -- and as someone concerned about this enough to take a supplement and ask a question, you did read the article, right? -- adults have taken 10,000IU/day for 6 months with no ill effects, and 50,000IU/week is usual for people with a diagnosed deficiency until it's cured. So as for everything else, the dose makes the poison, but typical official recommendations (1000IU/day and lower) seem to be a fraction of what's best and a tiny fraction of what's safe.
robg 16y ago
It also depends on the form. As others here note, Vit D is fat soluble so gel caps are much better. 1400 IU may not be enough especially if it's a pill. I take a 5000 IU gel cap most days. Still, if you haven't been tested, you should. It's easy and inexpensive.
jrockway 16y ago
Maybe you weren't deficient? I had a blood test that said I was deficient, after taking about 4000IU of vitamin D a day for a long time (years). I upped the dose to 10,000-12,000IU, and I feel the same, but the blood test comes back as not deficient. Interestingly, a strong immune system is not always good. I am allergic to everything. (But that problem is solved with immunotherapy.)

jlcgull 16y ago

More truth than hype in this case. The modern indoor lifestyle and diet are not very conducive to maintaining the requisite levels. Vitamin D comes in many forms -- and not all are equal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol

robg 16y ago
Indeed. The D3 form is one you want. I actually had a endocrinologist prescribe the D2 form. Luckily my nutritionist has been following the literature for years.
- carbocation 16y ago
  Both forms are suffiecient to cure rickets.
  - dgordon 16y ago
    And that incredibly low standard is also how the FDA set the "recommended daily allowance." Similar things are true for most other vitamins and minerals, as I recall. Also, D2 causes overdose effects pretty easily, but you can take big multiples of the "RDA" in D3 (I think 10,000 IU/day for months for vitamin D deficiency has been mentioned) for quite a while without overdosing.
    - carbocation 16y ago
      > you can take big multiples of the "RDA" in D3 (I think 10,000 IU/day for months for vitamin D deficiency has been mentioned) for quite a while without overdosing. That's actually a problem, as people can become accustomed to taking large doses and then not understand why problems are occurring when they start way down the road.

jackfoxy 16y ago

Just from my own experience, I started taking vitamin D supplements during the winter months (roughly from equinox to equinox) 3 winters ago, and it seems like my immune system has vastly improved. The number of colds and flus I was subject to fell from about 3 per season to 1 the first season and zero the next two (knock on wood).

prat 16y ago
This is just my experience, but I noticed that I used to have flu every 3-4 month between the age of 18 to 22 and then it suddenly stopped. I didn't take any supplements for this to happen, just graduated from college. I am not sure if it was the hormonal changes or change of environment or just plain growing up, but I'd think twice before attributing it to supplements.
- jackfoxy 16y ago
  Correct, this is only anecdotal "evidence". It's hard enough even for professionals to do controlled medical studies. However, my work environment has not changed at all, and my colleagues continue to get as sick as ever.
- ruang 16y ago
  You probably developed immunity to the most common viruses after having exposure to them earlier on. The same thing happened with me after growing up in the Midwest winters.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
robg 16y ago
I used to get symptoms associated with Seasonal Affective Disorder every winter. Now for two winters straight the Vitamin D supplements have minimized those symptoms.
- alaithea 16y ago
  During my second winter in Portland, OR, I started to feel chronically tired and nearly unable to wake up each morning, no matter how much sleep I had had. Once I realized something was wrong, I started Vitamin D supplements and within a day or two, I felt like a brand new person. It was really dramatic. Since then, I take them every year during the colder months.

bhousel 16y ago

I first heard about this last year after elite marathoner Deena Kastor found that she had a Vitamin D deficiency. She ended up breaking a bone in the Beijing Olympics. It turned out that she had plenty of calcium, but was deficient in Vitamin D from overusing sunscreen. http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=16940 http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=16940 Luckily the solution for most of us is to just go outside for 15 minutes and enjoy the sun!

hugh3 16y ago

As far as I can see, you'd have to have a pretty screwy sort of lifestyle, or an obsessive use of sunscreen, to not achieve this recommendation: Dr. Holick suggests going outside in summer unprotected by sunscreen (except for the face, which should always be protected) wearing minimal clothing ... two or three times a week for 5 to 10 minutes I'm pretty confident that I'm not going to suffer from Vitamin D deficiency. (Skin cancer maybe...)

doug_m 16y ago
I guess you don't live in Scotland. We'd call 5 to 10 minutes of sun 2 or 3 times a week a heatwave.
- latentflip 16y ago
  I had no idea there were so many Scots around here. I guess all this talk of weather brings us out.
warpwoof 16y ago
Do you live on the beach? Seriously, I can't think of any of my friends who regularly spend time outside with their shirt off each week, which I'm pretty sure is what is meant by "minimal clothing."
- hugh3 16y ago
  I'm assuming that thirty minutes in short sleeves is as good as five minutes with your shirt off.
  - warpwoof 16y ago
    I think that's a bit of an underestimate. Short sleeves basically expose only the skin on the top of your arm from the elbow down. That's a lot less surface area compared to your full front and back, shoulders, and neck. Your chest/shoulders/upper back will also be receiving direct, unbroken sunlight, while your arms are probably blocked a good deal when they are at your side by shadows. If it were that easy I don't think deficiency would be so prevalent. I agree that it's almost impossible not to get 30 min of partial exposure.

jsdalton 16y ago

Are Vitamin D supplements and Vitamin D obtained from the sun the same thing? What I mean is, are supplements good enough, or is sun exposure really required?

robg 16y ago
Scientifically, that seems to be a tough question to answer. But it's probably better if your body makes it because it will be more easily usable. You only need 15 mins of direct sun exposure to produce more than enough for your daily requirements. The problem is my body has stopped producing Vitamin D. We've tried kick starting the system with the 50,000 IU dose and it barely moved my levels. Of course, the sun is also free (unless you worry that 15 mins/day can cause cancer) while if you buy supplements you'd want the high quality ones and preferably in a fatty medium for easier absorption. The D3 form is more easily converted by the body into an active form.
- adammichaelc 16y ago
  "you only need 15 minutes" It's important to qualify that this is only true of people with lower levels of melanin (ie white people). For Hispanics and Asians/Indians the number is probably closer to 60 minutes, and for those of African descent the number is closer to 120 minutes.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    That's evolution in action, folks. Just look at where each ethnicity originates from, and it makes perfect sense. When you live in northern Europe, you may not get much sun, and have to make the most of it.
    - arethuza 16y ago
      I'm in Scotland, what is this "sun" thing you speak of?
      - 16y ago

NathanKP 16y ago

The article recommends: Asked for a general recommendation, Dr. Holick suggests going outside in summer unprotected by sunscreen (except for the face, which should always be protected) wearing minimal clothing from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. two or three times a week for 5 to 10 minutes. Slathering skin with sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will reduce exposure to ultraviolet-B rays by 95 to 98 percent. But if you make enough vitamin D in your skin in summer, it can meet the body’s needs for the rest of the year, Dr. Holick said. Personally I'd rather take a supplement than risk skin cancer later in life from sun exposure. There is definitely a tradeoff between the natural technique of acquiring vitamin D and the safe way. Getting vitamin D via sunlight on the skin was safer when we had more ozone and fewer ultraviolet rays.

mrduncan 16y ago
Does 5-10 minutes 2-3 times per week actually represent a significant cancer risk?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Just in case that wasn't a rhetorical question, no. Skin cancer is as much a pre-disposition affair as it is induced by UV radiation, and people with far higher exposure levels are still not at a significant risk for skin cancer unless their genetic make-up is such that they are very prone to contracting it. If you have extremely light skin, have freckles (especially darker ones), have red hair or if there is a history of skin cancer in your family better be careful though. Otherwise, enjoy the sun but don't overdo it.
  - mrduncan 16y ago
    Bad phrasing on my part, it was a serious question. It seems to me that a few minutes in the sun every couple of days would be very unlikely to have any long term impacts (obviously, I'm not an expert though).
- aw3c2 16y ago
  If that was the case then humanity would be doomed. The sun is good and we need it. Just not too much.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mhd 16y ago

So Baz Luhrmann was wrong?

robg 16y ago

I posted this because I've been deficient for over a year and half now. It seems my body has stopped producing Vitamin D. I was on supplements for 8 months then went hiking for three weeks and off supplements. I came back and my levels had actually dropped. In my case the supplements have literally changed my life. I sleep better, I don't get mid-afternoon drowsiness any more (which I had for years), and my wife can predict whether I've been taking my supplements based on my mood. EDIT: I should have mentioned that the blood test is extremely easy and inexpensive. Though try to avoid Quest Labs as there have been reports that their results are not accurate for Vitamin D. I have little doubt that my grad school years - in the office before 9am and out after 7pm - hurt my skin's ability to make Vitamin D. I started having afternoon drowsiness then and for over five years. Within one day of starting the supplements it has completely gone away.

carbocation 16y ago
You got drowsy in grad school each afternoon, but now you're no longer drowsy and you take Vitamin D. Are you also no longer in grad school?
- robg 16y ago
  It carried over for years after grad school even as I regularly got 7-8 hours of sleep. Quite literally, it was gone within one day of supplements (5,000 IU) and it has never come back. For me there couldn't be a stronger personal causation. One day it was there and for years, the next it was gone.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Thanks for the follow-up. From your original post the timeline wasn't clear to me, but this helps clear it up.
    - robg 16y ago
      Sorry, I usually don't post comments because of how much context is lost. Part of the problem was trying to isolate the cause. I was in grad school for five years. In year two I started to notice the problem but I thought it was simply stress related. The solution was the futon in the office. I'd take an afternoon nap and then I was mostly good to go. During my post-doc I was less stressed but the problem remained. Only after my three year post-doc, a family member nutritionist literally looked at my eyes and said I was Vitamin D deficient. Sure enough, the results came back and I was badly deficient. 1.5 years of supplements later and I never take a afternoon nap.

alt219 16y ago

Speaking from personal experience, we found out our daughter was vitamin D deficient about a year ago, and she has subsequently been diagnosed with Type-1 Diabetes, as well as celiac disease. If it's possible that vitamin D deficiency and Type-1 Diabetes (and other autoimmune disorders) are linked, then I urge everyone to supplement their and their children's diets.

carbocation 16y ago
Those diseases may well be linked, but in reverse order. Vitamin D deficiency is caused by: 1. Reduced gut uptake of (fat-soluble) Vitamin D due to malabsorption. 2. Reduced renal hydroxylation of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 into 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. I can't speak to your daughter's specific problems, but since she has gut and, possibly, renal disease (given her diabetes), Vitamin D deficiency is quite possibly a consequence of those problems, and almost certainly not cause.
- kragen 16y ago
  From the article: The rising incidence of Type 1 diabetes may be due, in part, to the current practice of protecting the young from sun exposure. When newborn infants in Finland were given 2,000 international units a day, Type 1 diabetes fell by 88 percent, Dr. Holick said. So I suspect that your statement, "vitamin D deficiency is ... of those problems [including type-1 diabetes mellitus] ... almost certainly not cause," is undermined by the evidence. Do you know of some problem with the study cited in the article?
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Thank you for disagreeing. The article was actually so sparse with the information that I misunderstood it for an epidemiological association. I went and found the study in pubmed, and I see that it's actually stronger than that - it's a cohort study with an intervention. It's not gold-standard, randomized-trial-level evidence, but it's still important. I'm still a bit skeptical, because the human genetic data, so far, doesn't back up the association between Vit D deficiency genes and T1D. Nevertheless, I'll revise my statement to agree that both (a) diabetes can cause a decrease in the hormonally active form of vitamin D, and (b) high-quality Grade B evidence suggests that the converse is also true. Nevertheless, I don't see Vitamin D deficiency as the unifying diagnosis here. One could even speculate that the Vit D deficiency was secondary, and the T1D was tertiary, but we really don't have enough information to speculate here and I'll stop now. I probably shouldn't have in the first place.

apower 16y ago

Nudist colony FTW.

robg 16y ago
Funny enough, my uncle suffered from bi-polar for decades before he died of heart disease. He became a nudist because he said sunshine helped him feel better.

adbge 16y ago

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, sunscreen does not prevent vitamin D from being produced, at least at SPF 15. "There has been some concern that use of sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 results in vitamin D deficiency. However, a randomized trial in people over 40 years of age found that sunscreen use over the summer had no effect on 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels." Source: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm

aw3c2 16y ago
There are different kinds of sunscreen (physical and chemical) and of course different strengths. 15 would be considered low in my social group (young sailors).

powellc 16y ago

I'm just going to go ahead and comment here and say how much I hate newspapers trying to publish scientific information. I began raising my own pigs last year, and one of the things I get back from the slaughter house is about 20 pounds per pig of fatback and leaf lard. Do you know what the USDA has to say about the vitamin D content of pork lard? 2,800 IU per 100g. So, it seems as though our consumption of animal fat in the winter time helps to offset the fact that the sun in the great white north is so rare. It would also help explain why Inuit and other far northern cultures don't die of vitamin difficencies. (i.e., our bodies are extraordinary machines and have developed ways to function optimally without relying on a single source of any one nutrient) It is only when we shuffle the deck and start eating a tropical, fruit + veggie heavy diet, in January that all hell breaks loose. Of course, from everything I've read, it would also appear that pure corn-fed lard is so bad for you that the vitamin D doesn't matter. Best to eat pastured organic pork lard (oh, and plenty of fatty fish) in the winter time or move back to the equator.

kingkawn 16y ago
Pastured organic pork lard is substantially more likely to lead to trichinosis.
- powellc 16y ago
  Hmmm. Unless you are just ripping the lard off the animals back, last time I checked trichinosis was the result of undercooking meat. Also, I should hope that the farmer is using some form of dewormer. There are plenty of proven organic herbal supplements you can give livestock that drastically reduce the parasite load of your average farm animal. I'm using a two-step wormwood-based dewormer and also supplement my animals' diets with garlic powder.
  - smallblacksun 16y ago
    > and also supplement my animals' diets with garlic powder. Sweet, garlic flavored pork!
  - kingkawn 16y ago

MikeCapone 16y ago

I take 4,000 UI of vitamin D3 in gelcaps (it's fat soluble, so much better absorbed than with dry tablets) each day. Been doing it for years. Make sure you get the gelcaps if you get supplements. Blood tests have shown that dry tablets are really badly absorbed, so that some people who think they might be taking enough supplements could still be deficient.

tocomment 16y ago
Intresting. Maybe that's why I haven't noticed anything.
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  My reference for this is a series of post by a Dr. Davis, cardiologist, who blogs here: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ Check the archives for more.
photon_off 16y ago
The dry tablets are so much a combination of ineffective and popular that their deposits in water treatment plants is often a problem. Pretty crazy, right? http://healthnow.blogspot.com/2005/01/tons-of-vitamins-removed-from-sewage.html http://healthnow.blogspot.com/2005/01/tons-of-vitamins-remov...

russell 16y ago

I started using Vitamin D supplements after I read an article about a Dr. at Atascadero State Hospital. He noticed that some of his patients had low vitamin D. He started giving it to them all and got remarkable improvements. (Sorry I couldnt find the article. That article of others noted that the normal range for vitamin D tests is too low. Someone who is low normal is probably deficient. Vitamin D is not just for rickets. A deficiency can cause all kinds of other nonspecific problems.

lg 16y ago

I always prefer to take things these things the way they're found in nature, rather than isolated in a pill (bonus points if people have been taking them for a really long time with no ill effects). So I take cod liver oil instead of vitamin D supplements.

ahn 16y ago
Do you get the oil by sucking on an actual cod liver? Note that regular unrefined cod liver oil is very high in vitamin A, so you can kill yourself by drinking enough of it(see hypervitaminosis A). Vitamin A pills contain trivial amounts though(to stop people from killing themselves I am told), so the cod liver oil is a nice way to go if you feel that you need to supplement for some reason. And of course you also get the D, some nice fatty acids, and maybe a little mercury too.
- gamache 16y ago
  Cod has minimal mercury. The fish with methylmercury issues tend to be large fish which live many years. Data: http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115644.htm http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformati...
starkfist 16y ago
The vitamin D in cod liver oil actually comes from the algae the cod eats, so a pill based on that algae is closer to it's original state than the oil.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jessep 16y ago

Vitamin D for the win. A close friend of mine was suffering from intense, debilitating balance problems for months and months, visited tons of doctors, and finally one of them said, "Your Vitamin D levels are really low. An italian can't really get enough sun living in San Francisco." He started taking Vitamin D and the problems largely went away.

semerda 16y ago

Thanks for the sharing the link - great read. I used to have inadequate levels of Vitamin D at 13 ng/ML and jumped on 50,000 IU supplements for 8 weeks and now am on 5000 IU every 2nd day. My Vitamin D levels are back into the healthy zone at 54 ng/ML and it has certainly made a massive difference in my well being and resistance to flu. I obviously had to blog about it since it's such a cheap and simple fix to your health. Hence why pharmaceutical companies won’t talk about it.. http://blog.ernestsemerda.com/2010/02/09/we-are-starving-our-bodies-of-vitamin-d-nature-has-a-cure/ http://blog.ernestsemerda.com/2010/02/09/we-are-starving-our...

msluyter 16y ago

Dr. William Davis, whom I follow for his cardiology related advice, also advocates taking vitamin D for optimum heart health. He notes that most people lose the ability to synthesize vitamin D as they age. Here's a typical post on the subject: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/getting-vitamin-d-right.html http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/getting-vitamin-d-... My own report is that after taking 6000IU/day of vitamin D, I rarely suffer from afternoon drowsiness, whereas before it was so bad I'd sometimes go take a nap in in my car in 90+ degree heat around 3pm.

Femur 16y ago
I also am a follower of Dr. Davis' very interesting blog.

nasalter 16y ago

Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte dedicated an episode of Security Now to Vitamin D, which I found very informative... TWiT link: http://www.twit.tv/sn209 http://www.twit.tv/sn209 Transcript: http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.htm http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.htm Steve Gibson's dedicated Vitamin D page: http://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm http://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm

code_duck 16y ago

Do sunlamps work?

pizza_ 16y ago

down here in my mom's basement i have replaced the lights with tanning lamps for just this reason.

katl 16y ago

parbo 16y ago

In Sweden, all small children are given vitamin D supplements. Only 400 IU per day though.