14 ms·

Anecdotally, I had this discussion with a cardiovascular interventionist specialist about seven or eight years ago when I was managing a team of cardio theatre

Anecdotally, I had this discussion with a cardiovascular interventionist specialist about seven or eight years ago when I was managing a team of cardio theatre orderlies in a private hospital. He made the comment, "mark my words, in about five to ten years time there will be a major scare about needing to absorb more vitamin D". His opinion was that the increase in sunscreen usage and the push to avoid skin cancer by staying covered up was likely to blame. I find it interesting when articles such as this pop up, because it directly reflects his concerns from those years ago. For reference, this was the late Dr Geoffrey Mews (who I only just realised has passed on while I was looking for a reference to post. That's made me a bit sad now)

deepGem 9y ago
The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    Sure, but higher melanin (ie, darker skin pigmentation) is correlated with lower cancer rates [1][2]. So the point is that cultural changes are causing people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin, to now have reducing melanin/pigmentation, therefore increasing rates of skin cancer. [1] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-early-detection/sun-damage.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-ear... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      Aren't those links about "people with naturally darker skin"? I'm not sure how cultural changes can affect that. Rich people may eat caviar, but eating caviar won't make you rich...
      - Sean1708 9y ago
        > The tan is caused by an increase in the activity and number of melanocytes, the cells that make the pigment melanin. Melanin helps block out damaging UV rays up to a point, It's not particularly clearly worded but to me that seems to suggest that tanning increases melanin and that melanin helps prevent cancer regardless of whether your dark skin is natural or tanned.
        kgwgk 9y ago
        But if tanning also produces cancer it remains to be determined which effect dominates (unlike for people with naturally dark skin, where the effect can only go in the beneficial sense).
        scott_s 9y ago
        Indoor tanning is associated with higher rates of skin cancer: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.ht... I suspect outdoor tanning is as well.
        Bartweiss 9y ago
        Broadly, my understanding is that a major change in skin tone is 'worth' about 15 SPF, so tanning would fall somewhere below that. For a fixed amount of sun exposure, spreading out the duration is better both to establish a tan and to allow more time for skin recovery. But there isn't really a case where tanning increases safety, because you get the tan via exposure. It's like saying pilots who practice a lot are safer; for any given flight it might be true, but cumulative risk can only rise.
        9y ago
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. People who cook themselves for fun do. If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. Yes, they do. > If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it. While state workers comp laws vary in ways which make this different from state to state, workers comp is paying for it for some subset of people who work outside. http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-comp-for-skin-cancer.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-c...
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Many of them (like my uncle a few years ago) don’t last very long, so it isn’t workers comp that you should just look at. It is definitely something that happens.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      Don't they? "However, compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Ag workers were routinely exposed to ridiculous levels of dangerous pesticides for most of the 20th century.
    - ataturk 9y ago
  - macawfish 9y ago
    I've known about the sunscreen misinformation for a long time. My dad died of malignant melanoma. He wore sun screen all the time. He didn't swim. He would wear sun hats. He was paranoid, and likely had premonition of it. Unfortunately, his prevention methods might have actually exacerbated his odds even further because he was depriving his skin of one of its few natural healing modalities.
    - GalacticDomin8r 9y ago
      What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Not smoking doesn't mean you will not get lung cancer.
      - macawfish 9y ago
        I know you probably meant that as a comment about correlation vs. causation, which is understandable. I agree that this is a complex issue, and that there are more factors than just sun exposure. But just so you're aware, your analogy rubbed me the wrong way. My father's death was definitely related to sun exposure in some way or another, and probably other factors like diet (he ate a lot of sugar), psychology/hormones (he experienced a lot of stress), and yes, genetics.
    - jimjimjim 9y ago
      it's not misinformation. one anecdote in one direction does not counter thousands in the other direction. Talk to some people in the southern hemisphere (australia and nz). There is a LOT of awareness of sun damage in these countries.
      - macawfish 9y ago
        There is misinformation about sunscreen. I'm not going to go and advocate that people don't use sunscreen, rather, for my own self, I've decided that it's important to have positive, moderate exposure to the sun in order to develop a healthy tan, to avoid overexposure, and to use sunscreen and protective clothing if I'm sure to be out in heavy sun. It's a complex, dynamical issue and there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of sunscreen to just blanket reduce melanoma: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 Not only that, there have been some controversies about sunscreens themselves containing questionable ingredients, some of which might actually be carcinogenic. If you're going to market your product as cancer preventative, but go and put carcinogens into that very same product, my trust level in your industry has been reduced by somewhere in the range of 25%-75%. Somehow, in all this, there are people who think any raw sun exposure is going to cause cancer. That's actually misinformation. Melanin is known to be a protective. How can one go about increasing melanin? By tanning in moderation, letting your skin adapt to the sun. Of course there are people who simply don't tan easily, and yes, they should be cautious. But I'm fortunate to have skin that tans, and I'm going to let it do that!
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Sun exposure != skin cancer. It's like avoiding eating food altogether because you might became obese, or worse (given the odds) choke on it.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      When the time it takes to get a burn is 10 minutes or less, you might as well treat it as exposure = burn.
      - kaybe 9y ago
        After I met an albino woman travelling I really appreciate my very-white-but-not-albino-skin. Sun lotion can only prolong your safe time, but 0 times whatever is still zero, as in her case. So there is a difference.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        That's when sunbathing on Venus. Or if you're a ginger or similar. On good old Earth, one can sit in the sun for hours on end without a burn. In fact people frequently do, like all the time.
        davidbanham 9y ago
        It depends where you are and what time of year it is. Go to Tasmania in summer and give that a shot. Ozone layer depletion is no joke.
        khedoros1 9y ago
        With some SPF30 sunscreen, or sufficiently dark skin, sure. I'm not especially pale, but I'll start burning in under an hour of direct sunlight. "Hours on end" would be a recipe for painfulness.
        lostlogin 9y ago
        Where do you live? I suspect it isn’t in the South Pacific.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  When the burn time is less than 10 minutes, you need to cover them up or have them play in the shade. The UV index for tomorrow is just shy of 14 and we are a month or two from the time of year when it’s highest, you would need medical treatment for a child who played in that and was uncovered all day. Related: I found the old measure (burn time) much easier to use than the new UV index, and while having it standard across countries is good, it’s not straight forward to convert. https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone/uv-index-information https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-o...
  - dijit 9y ago
    That UV index stuff is no joke. My girlfriend spent an hour "sunbathing" in the canary islands and came back with the most incredible sunburn I've ever seen. I'm mega paranoid (SPF 50 all the time in hot countries) and didn't notice anything damaging but she had to be covered in aloe vera creams to numb the pain.. it affected her sleep, it must have been unbearable. Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D bit I'm certain I don't want to advocate in favour of potentially harming people as much as my girlfriend experienced.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      > Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D Rickets and Osteomalacia are the big ones, I think. Both are a form of softening of the bones. Vitamin D apparently helps regulate the absorption and use of calcium, magnesium, and phosphate in the body.
    - abecedarius 9y ago
      Ouch! I've gotten a few bad sunburns in Los Angeles, but that sounds like something else. My sunbathing policy is to go without sunscreen but only for 20-30 minutes daily around noon.
  - redtuesday 9y ago
    I never took the time to investigate how accurate this site is, but it seems quite nice since it has uv index, time to skin redness and time to sunburn: http://sunburnmap.com http://sunburnmap.com
- zeveb 9y ago
  > One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I think this must be cultural. Certainly in my experience in the United States, the lust is for tanned skin. There are even tanning salons, where one can lie down in a machine which floods one's skin with UV. Now, I personally love fair skin, and have never understood why others seem to love a tan so much.
  - Quiark 9y ago
    And in Asia they sell skin-whitening lotions.
  - michaelbuckbee 9y ago
    Tanning salons are on a steep downturn [1] (at least the UV ones, spray tans are a different thing). 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust... 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust...
  - dsr_ 9y ago
    It's a cultural thing, and directly related to wealth (or class, if you prefer). If most people work outside for a living, then the sign of wealth is that you don't have a tan. If most people work in offices, then the sign of wealth is that you have a tan, implying that you went on vacation or otherwise have the available leisure time. When most people do manual labor, having impractically long fingernails demonstrates that you don't have to do that. When most people have two or three sets of clothing, changing clothes several times a day demonstrates your wealth. When most people eat a subsistence diet, being fat is demonstrating wealth. when most people eat fast food, being thin demonstrates your superior resources. If most people need to pay attention to what they are wearing at their jobs, dressing in a way which signals that you don't have to pay attention is a status marker. If everybody drives a car, picking an unusual vehicle can be a status marker. What's the difference between a Chevy Silverado 2-door and a Ford F-150 SVT Raptor? They demonstrate different spending priorities.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    Fathers family was Irish, Mothers Scottish. I burn in front of a monitor, I have fair skin because factor 50 and covering everything I can are simply required.
- caio1982 9y ago
  I live in southern Brazil (one of these tropical countries), where sunlight is not that easy to get; also people dress up and cover themselves much more than in other regions due to not only the weather but also for cultural reasons. In fact, the city where I live (Curitiba) has a huge portion of people who need vitamin D supplements, to the point this deficiency became folkloric. I was quite "happy" to learn last year that after a full decade here my blood exam showed for the first time in 35 years that now I need vitamin D supplements too.
- redtuesday 9y ago
  > [...] even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. Which is good because if I remember correctly the human skin has quit a bit natural sun protection, but is only fully developed in the twenties. If I got that mixed up with something else please correct me if I'm wrong.
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Henry Osiecki in his book The Nutrient Bible, I own the 9th edition published in March 2010, recommends 2000-8000IU for three weeks to reestablish sufficient levels, and a supplementary rage of 400-3000IU a day for maintenance. I obtained this book while studying clinical nutrition in Australia in 2005. Clinical nutrition as taught by at least a handful of teaching practitioners in Australia that I'm aware of has been using mega-dose therapy to re-establish nutritional deficiencies since at least before I became aware of it twelve years ago.
pcarolan 9y ago
What dose is recommended for adults and what is the best way to get it into your system?
- baq 9y ago
  an hour of sunshine a day?
  - exhilaration 9y ago
    Except during the summer months, the skin makes little if any vitamin D from the sun at latitudes above 37 degrees north (in the United States, the shaded region in the map) or below 37 degrees south of the equator. People who live in these areas are at relatively greater risk for vitamin D deficiency. Check out the map: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more...
    - pcarolan 9y ago
      That's me. Any idea how well supplements are absorbed? Which are better or worse?
      - exhilaration 9y ago
        Get a blood test first so you know your Vitamin D level (they're cheap: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15869485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15869485), maybe you already get enough from your diet. If you do need supplementation, then Vitamin D3 (specifically Cholecalciferol) is vastly better absorbed than Vitamin D2. If you want a specific recommendation, buy this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07234TTCC https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07234TTCC and take it twice per week (Sunday & Thursday for example), that'll average to about 1400 IU per day.
        triangleman 9y ago
        According to the article, it is safe and recommended to take one of those 5000 IU capsules per day.
bwanab 9y ago
This article from the NYTimes (paywall) caught my attention many years ago. Turns out it's from 2010 so about the same time as Dr. Mews prediction. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/health/27brod.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/health/27brod.html

deepGem 9y ago

The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!
- tomhoward 9y ago
  Sure, but higher melanin (ie, darker skin pigmentation) is correlated with lower cancer rates [1][2]. So the point is that cultural changes are causing people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin, to now have reducing melanin/pigmentation, therefore increasing rates of skin cancer. [1] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-early-detection/sun-damage.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-ear... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    Aren't those links about "people with naturally darker skin"? I'm not sure how cultural changes can affect that. Rich people may eat caviar, but eating caviar won't make you rich...
    - Sean1708 9y ago
      > The tan is caused by an increase in the activity and number of melanocytes, the cells that make the pigment melanin. Melanin helps block out damaging UV rays up to a point, It's not particularly clearly worded but to me that seems to suggest that tanning increases melanin and that melanin helps prevent cancer regardless of whether your dark skin is natural or tanned.
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        But if tanning also produces cancer it remains to be determined which effect dominates (unlike for people with naturally dark skin, where the effect can only go in the beneficial sense).
        scott_s 9y ago
        Indoor tanning is associated with higher rates of skin cancer: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.ht... I suspect outdoor tanning is as well.
        Bartweiss 9y ago
        Broadly, my understanding is that a major change in skin tone is 'worth' about 15 SPF, so tanning would fall somewhere below that. For a fixed amount of sun exposure, spreading out the duration is better both to establish a tan and to allow more time for skin recovery. But there isn't really a case where tanning increases safety, because you get the tan via exposure. It's like saying pilots who practice a lot are safer; for any given flight it might be true, but cumulative risk can only rise.
        9y ago
- Spooky23 9y ago
  People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. People who cook themselves for fun do. If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. Yes, they do. > If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it. While state workers comp laws vary in ways which make this different from state to state, workers comp is paying for it for some subset of people who work outside. http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-comp-for-skin-cancer.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-c...
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Many of them (like my uncle a few years ago) don’t last very long, so it isn’t workers comp that you should just look at. It is definitely something that happens.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    Don't they? "However, compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Ag workers were routinely exposed to ridiculous levels of dangerous pesticides for most of the 20th century.
  - ataturk 9y ago
- macawfish 9y ago
  I've known about the sunscreen misinformation for a long time. My dad died of malignant melanoma. He wore sun screen all the time. He didn't swim. He would wear sun hats. He was paranoid, and likely had premonition of it. Unfortunately, his prevention methods might have actually exacerbated his odds even further because he was depriving his skin of one of its few natural healing modalities.
  - GalacticDomin8r 9y ago
    What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Not smoking doesn't mean you will not get lung cancer.
    - macawfish 9y ago
      I know you probably meant that as a comment about correlation vs. causation, which is understandable. I agree that this is a complex issue, and that there are more factors than just sun exposure. But just so you're aware, your analogy rubbed me the wrong way. My father's death was definitely related to sun exposure in some way or another, and probably other factors like diet (he ate a lot of sugar), psychology/hormones (he experienced a lot of stress), and yes, genetics.
  - jimjimjim 9y ago
    it's not misinformation. one anecdote in one direction does not counter thousands in the other direction. Talk to some people in the southern hemisphere (australia and nz). There is a LOT of awareness of sun damage in these countries.
    - macawfish 9y ago
      There is misinformation about sunscreen. I'm not going to go and advocate that people don't use sunscreen, rather, for my own self, I've decided that it's important to have positive, moderate exposure to the sun in order to develop a healthy tan, to avoid overexposure, and to use sunscreen and protective clothing if I'm sure to be out in heavy sun. It's a complex, dynamical issue and there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of sunscreen to just blanket reduce melanoma: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 Not only that, there have been some controversies about sunscreens themselves containing questionable ingredients, some of which might actually be carcinogenic. If you're going to market your product as cancer preventative, but go and put carcinogens into that very same product, my trust level in your industry has been reduced by somewhere in the range of 25%-75%. Somehow, in all this, there are people who think any raw sun exposure is going to cause cancer. That's actually misinformation. Melanin is known to be a protective. How can one go about increasing melanin? By tanning in moderation, letting your skin adapt to the sun. Of course there are people who simply don't tan easily, and yes, they should be cautious. But I'm fortunate to have skin that tans, and I'm going to let it do that!
- coldtea 9y ago
  Sun exposure != skin cancer. It's like avoiding eating food altogether because you might became obese, or worse (given the odds) choke on it.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    When the time it takes to get a burn is 10 minutes or less, you might as well treat it as exposure = burn.
    - kaybe 9y ago
      After I met an albino woman travelling I really appreciate my very-white-but-not-albino-skin. Sun lotion can only prolong your safe time, but 0 times whatever is still zero, as in her case. So there is a difference.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      That's when sunbathing on Venus. Or if you're a ginger or similar. On good old Earth, one can sit in the sun for hours on end without a burn. In fact people frequently do, like all the time.
      - davidbanham 9y ago
        It depends where you are and what time of year it is. Go to Tasmania in summer and give that a shot. Ozone layer depletion is no joke.
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        With some SPF30 sunscreen, or sufficiently dark skin, sure. I'm not especially pale, but I'll start burning in under an hour of direct sunlight. "Hours on end" would be a recipe for painfulness.
      - lostlogin 9y ago
        Where do you live? I suspect it isn’t in the South Pacific.
lostlogin 9y ago
When the burn time is less than 10 minutes, you need to cover them up or have them play in the shade. The UV index for tomorrow is just shy of 14 and we are a month or two from the time of year when it’s highest, you would need medical treatment for a child who played in that and was uncovered all day. Related: I found the old measure (burn time) much easier to use than the new UV index, and while having it standard across countries is good, it’s not straight forward to convert. https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone/uv-index-information https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-o...
- dijit 9y ago
  That UV index stuff is no joke. My girlfriend spent an hour "sunbathing" in the canary islands and came back with the most incredible sunburn I've ever seen. I'm mega paranoid (SPF 50 all the time in hot countries) and didn't notice anything damaging but she had to be covered in aloe vera creams to numb the pain.. it affected her sleep, it must have been unbearable. Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D bit I'm certain I don't want to advocate in favour of potentially harming people as much as my girlfriend experienced.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D Rickets and Osteomalacia are the big ones, I think. Both are a form of softening of the bones. Vitamin D apparently helps regulate the absorption and use of calcium, magnesium, and phosphate in the body.
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    Ouch! I've gotten a few bad sunburns in Los Angeles, but that sounds like something else. My sunbathing policy is to go without sunscreen but only for 20-30 minutes daily around noon.
- redtuesday 9y ago
  I never took the time to investigate how accurate this site is, but it seems quite nice since it has uv index, time to skin redness and time to sunburn: http://sunburnmap.com http://sunburnmap.com
zeveb 9y ago
> One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I think this must be cultural. Certainly in my experience in the United States, the lust is for tanned skin. There are even tanning salons, where one can lie down in a machine which floods one's skin with UV. Now, I personally love fair skin, and have never understood why others seem to love a tan so much.
- Quiark 9y ago
  And in Asia they sell skin-whitening lotions.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  Tanning salons are on a steep downturn [1] (at least the UV ones, spray tans are a different thing). 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust... 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust...
- dsr_ 9y ago
  It's a cultural thing, and directly related to wealth (or class, if you prefer). If most people work outside for a living, then the sign of wealth is that you don't have a tan. If most people work in offices, then the sign of wealth is that you have a tan, implying that you went on vacation or otherwise have the available leisure time. When most people do manual labor, having impractically long fingernails demonstrates that you don't have to do that. When most people have two or three sets of clothing, changing clothes several times a day demonstrates your wealth. When most people eat a subsistence diet, being fat is demonstrating wealth. when most people eat fast food, being thin demonstrates your superior resources. If most people need to pay attention to what they are wearing at their jobs, dressing in a way which signals that you don't have to pay attention is a status marker. If everybody drives a car, picking an unusual vehicle can be a status marker. What's the difference between a Chevy Silverado 2-door and a Ford F-150 SVT Raptor? They demonstrate different spending priorities.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  Fathers family was Irish, Mothers Scottish. I burn in front of a monitor, I have fair skin because factor 50 and covering everything I can are simply required.
caio1982 9y ago
I live in southern Brazil (one of these tropical countries), where sunlight is not that easy to get; also people dress up and cover themselves much more than in other regions due to not only the weather but also for cultural reasons. In fact, the city where I live (Curitiba) has a huge portion of people who need vitamin D supplements, to the point this deficiency became folkloric. I was quite "happy" to learn last year that after a full decade here my blood exam showed for the first time in 35 years that now I need vitamin D supplements too.
redtuesday 9y ago
> [...] even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. Which is good because if I remember correctly the human skin has quit a bit natural sun protection, but is only fully developed in the twenties. If I got that mixed up with something else please correct me if I'm wrong.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

Henry Osiecki in his book The Nutrient Bible, I own the 9th edition published in March 2010, recommends 2000-8000IU for three weeks to reestablish sufficient levels, and a supplementary rage of 400-3000IU a day for maintenance. I obtained this book while studying clinical nutrition in Australia in 2005. Clinical nutrition as taught by at least a handful of teaching practitioners in Australia that I'm aware of has been using mega-dose therapy to re-establish nutritional deficiencies since at least before I became aware of it twelve years ago.

pcarolan 9y ago

What dose is recommended for adults and what is the best way to get it into your system?

baq 9y ago
an hour of sunshine a day?
- exhilaration 9y ago
  Except during the summer months, the skin makes little if any vitamin D from the sun at latitudes above 37 degrees north (in the United States, the shaded region in the map) or below 37 degrees south of the equator. People who live in these areas are at relatively greater risk for vitamin D deficiency. Check out the map: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more...
  - pcarolan 9y ago
    That's me. Any idea how well supplements are absorbed? Which are better or worse?
    - exhilaration 9y ago
      Get a blood test first so you know your Vitamin D level (they're cheap: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15869485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15869485), maybe you already get enough from your diet. If you do need supplementation, then Vitamin D3 (specifically Cholecalciferol) is vastly better absorbed than Vitamin D2. If you want a specific recommendation, buy this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07234TTCC https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07234TTCC and take it twice per week (Sunday & Thursday for example), that'll average to about 1400 IU per day.
      - triangleman 9y ago
        According to the article, it is safe and recommended to take one of those 5000 IU capsules per day.

bwanab 9y ago

This article from the NYTimes (paywall) caught my attention many years ago. Turns out it's from 2010 so about the same time as Dr. Mews prediction. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/health/27brod.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/health/27brod.html