3 ms·

> You get most of your vitamin D from skin exposure to sunlight Is this even true? How are you going to get enough sunlight while living in, say, the US Northe

> You get most of your vitamin D from skin exposure to sunlight Is this even true? How are you going to get enough sunlight while living in, say, the US Northeast, or not being white?

oliwarner 8y ago
In the UK you can easily get all your vitamin D from sunlight for 6 months of the year[0,1]. That said, more and more foods are being vitamin supplemented, or available in fortified versions, especially for children (eg milk, yoghurts). I doubt it'll become "standard" like thiamin and others in flour (in the UK at least) because you can overdose. [0] http://www.bad.org.uk/for-the-public/skin-cancer/vitamin-d http://www.bad.org.uk/for-the-public/skin-cancer/vitamin-d (footnotes 24, 25) [1] https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Summerhealth/Pages/vitamin-D-sunlight.aspx https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Summerhealth/Pages/vitamin-D-sun...
- ryanmerket 8y ago
  I recently read this paper. It says there was a major mathematical error in the meta study used to dictate the Vitamin D standards for many countries: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    If you're going to cite anything, cite the original letter, which was featured in a relatively high impact journal: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/10/4472 http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/10/4472 I've not had time to review it yet.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    Having spoken with a mathematician, I'm not sure this letter's assumptions are entirely sound. The major finding is the original targets are based on the average response (so up to 50% still in deficiency), not getting 97% to a base level. However only being able to use 10 papers and without their data (only standard deviations) hamstrung their ability to peg a better range. More, their approach requires a normal distribution and a solid link between input and output levels, neither of which really exist here. Random error scuppers their analysis. Again, this is not to say there isn't something here, it just needs more work, especially when recommending people take 2-3 times the current max tolerable limit.
- tree_of_item 8y ago
  "You" can, who is you? > Population groups at particular risk of low vitamin D include pregnant and breastfeeding women, young children, older people, darker-skinned people, those who wear whole-body coverings or live in institutions. The Government currently recommends these groups take a 10 microgram (400 iu) vitamin D supplement a day (7 micrograms a day for children 6 months - 5 years)1,12. So it seems like darker skinned people actually can't.
tytytytytytytyt 8y ago
By following an Eskimo diet.

> You get most of your vitamin D from skin exposure to sunlight Is this even true? How are you going to get enough sunlight while living in, say, the US Northeast, or not being white?

oliwarner 8y ago

In the UK you can easily get all your vitamin D from sunlight for 6 months of the year[0,1]. That said, more and more foods are being vitamin supplemented, or available in fortified versions, especially for children (eg milk, yoghurts). I doubt it'll become "standard" like thiamin and others in flour (in the UK at least) because you can overdose. [0] http://www.bad.org.uk/for-the-public/skin-cancer/vitamin-d http://www.bad.org.uk/for-the-public/skin-cancer/vitamin-d (footnotes 24, 25) [1] https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Summerhealth/Pages/vitamin-D-sunlight.aspx https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Summerhealth/Pages/vitamin-D-sun...

ryanmerket 8y ago
I recently read this paper. It says there was a major mathematical error in the meta study used to dictate the Vitamin D standards for many countries: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/
- oliwarner 8y ago
  If you're going to cite anything, cite the original letter, which was featured in a relatively high impact journal: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/10/4472 http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/10/4472 I've not had time to review it yet.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Having spoken with a mathematician, I'm not sure this letter's assumptions are entirely sound. The major finding is the original targets are based on the average response (so up to 50% still in deficiency), not getting 97% to a base level. However only being able to use 10 papers and without their data (only standard deviations) hamstrung their ability to peg a better range. More, their approach requires a normal distribution and a solid link between input and output levels, neither of which really exist here. Random error scuppers their analysis. Again, this is not to say there isn't something here, it just needs more work, especially when recommending people take 2-3 times the current max tolerable limit.
tree_of_item 8y ago
"You" can, who is you? > Population groups at particular risk of low vitamin D include pregnant and breastfeeding women, young children, older people, darker-skinned people, those who wear whole-body coverings or live in institutions. The Government currently recommends these groups take a 10 microgram (400 iu) vitamin D supplement a day (7 micrograms a day for children 6 months - 5 years)1,12. So it seems like darker skinned people actually can't.

tytytytytytytyt 8y ago

By following an Eskimo diet.