11 ms·

> Those concerned about low vitamin D levels can get more of the vitamin through foods. As someone who had a number of health issues whose underlying cause was

• iamben 8y ago
  Could I ask what lamp you chose and how long you spend in front of it? I take a fairly high dose of D3 and I'd be curious to try artificial light. Thanks!
  • rapsey 8y ago
    Androv 3000 uv-b lamp for vitamin d. I never use it for more than 1 minute and I alternate between facing away and towards it. For the first month I used it every day, now more like every other day or every two days.
    • polkadotted 8y ago
      Tangentially related, I got an androv full-spectrum lamp several years ago for some color work. It was one of the few true "full spectrum" bulbs you can get for cheap which are decently balanced without resorting to use a combination of bulbs. And yes, we tested it with a spectrometer. Most other full-spectrum lamps I tried at the time on amazon didn't get even close. If you never tried, working with these lamps is weird: turning it on in the evening or night by mistake _really_ wakes you up. So yeah, I hope Androv kept up with the quality.
      • Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
        Was that the desklamp? Do you happen to know a more specific model of such a lamp?
        • polkadotted 8y ago
          Yes, to be specific the 42W model. I did the order in 2010, to be specific, so some time has passed since I did the tests.
      • marvin 8y ago
        Maybe I should replace my daylight lamp with this, to counter the winter depression. (Norwegian).
    • pointillistic 8y ago
      Are these lamps safe?
      • raxxorrax 8y ago
        A few applications à 15 min with a mercury high pressure lamp with a good reflector and you look like you went to the Caribbean for holidays. Maybe add a filter for UV-C, but there is no ionizing radiation. Just show any lamp in question to your favorite dermatologist. If he seems unhappy, you have the chosen the right lamp. Jokes aside, skin is very photo-active and I do think lamps can help greatly against these kind deficiencies. Most lamps emit a line spectrum though, so it is not like real sunlight. I wonder if that is the reason people going to solaria often seem to have weird skin tones. Ask a dermatologist and don't forget eye protection. Apart from that it has the same side effects as sun exposure. Too much leads to skin aging, sunburn, cancer, etc.
        • manmal 8y ago
          Those side effects can be mitigated or at least reduced by adding extra infrared or red light. Eg sunburns are prevented or greatly reduced by treating with near infrared either before or after UV exposure.
          • pas 8y ago
            Could you explain please how/why IR helps with sunburn? :o
            • manmal 8y ago
              There are some interesting papers turning up if you google „pubmed infrared sunburn“. One of these: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00373376 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00373376
    • Jedd 8y ago
      >... now more like every other day or every two days. Can I ask the difference? I'm assuming a typo, but haven't experienced sun shortage for at least six years, so I'm not sure on boom / bust cycle potential with these things.
      • rapsey 8y ago
        I dont understand the question. The difference between using every other day or every two days?
        • Vinnl 8y ago
          Using every other day = use one day, then not use it the day after. Using once every two days = use one day, then not use it the day after. Perhaps you meant "once every three days", i.e. use it one day, then not use it for two days?
          • rapsey 8y ago
            Yes I meant every three days
    • graeme 8y ago
      Do you use it only in winter, or year round?
      • rapsey 8y ago
        Year round
• stinos 8y ago
  Couldn't it be that this depends on the person? Maybe others can use the vitamin D present in food? I.e. part of your deficit might be because your body somehow cannot process the D in food? Just guessing here..
  • rapsey 8y ago
    I have no idea
  • FreeFull 8y ago
    Typically there isn't enough vitamin D in food to match anybody's recommended intake, unless you eat rather large amounts of seafood.
• Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  Was your supplement dosage enough though? In the order of 10000 IU per day? The problem with vitamin D was that up until about a year ago, official recommendations in many countries were mistakenly low (500-1000 IUs), which as it turned out, was not enough for many people. It was even hard to find proper pills that has high enough dosages, because when you got to your local farmacist which was going by the official recommendations, all they had were 200-500 IU pills, because they were not expecting that anyone would need more. So as an average citizen who does not do their research properly, if they just went into a farmacist and took the first Vitamin D supplement they saw, the chances were that they were getting one which had basically no effect. When the dosage is right, many people experience positive effects and dormant Vitamin D levels really do go up. The sun is not required.
  • rapsey 8y ago
    It was 6000+
    • Ensorceled 8y ago
      Just another anecdote, a friend of mine with Lyme Disease has serious problems absorbing vitamin D (and other nutrients) via food, his doctor has him on 10K per day.
      • gbrown 8y ago
        If I recall correctly, such a treatment is not yet evidence based, though clinical trials are ongoing.
    • MikeCapone 8y ago
      Was it gelcaps or dry tablets? Vitamin D is fat-soluble so much better absorbed in gelcap format (and taken with a meal).
      • lukeschlather 8y ago
        Personally, I've been taking 5000 IUs/day and recently started stepping that closer to 10,000 IUs. I use the liquid drops which are in oil, and I always try to take them with some sort of meal. The liquid is a lot cheaper and seems like the ideal way to absorb it to me. This is in cloudy wintertime Seattle. In sunny times it may be completely unnecessary.
• Angostura 8y ago
  Good, straightforward advice from the NHS here. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-... - just about the only vitamin that they recommend supplementing orally for the general population, at least during the winter months.
• endorphone 8y ago
  A related article that was on here recently- https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure... Vitamin D is something we can measure and often serves as an indicator, but large scale tests have shown limited effectiveness of supplements at resolving the issues a Vitamin D deficiency causes. e.g. We increase blood Vitamin D, but there are unknown correlative mechanisms that we aren't substituting.
• gnclmorais 8y ago
  I agree that food doesn’t have enough vitamin D, but supplements really made the difference for me. Just get the right dosage (which is probably higher that you think).
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• nradov 8y ago
  I think there's a business opportunity for someone to make light bulbs which emit a little UVB. Not enough to cause sunburn or raise skin cancer risk, just enough to keep our vitamin D levels up. That way you could just stick it in a light fixture and go about your normal life. Is such a light practical to build?
  • istjohn 8y ago
    I try to use a tanning bed a couple times a week in winter.
    • lawlessone 8y ago
      is that safe?
      • eeZah7Ux 8y ago
        Not at all.
      • shirro 8y ago
        Tanning beds are banned in some countries with high skin cancer rates for good reason. It is a lottery and you are accumulating risk with exposure. I strongly suspect (without any real evidence) that there are a number of beneficial health effects to moderate UV exposure that can improve quality of life for some people but the experience with fair skinned populations in high UV parts of the world has been overwhelmingly negative. The public health advice is basically written in blood on this topic and so I would view people and sites promoting alternative views with an appropriate amount of skepticism for now.
    • coredog64 8y ago
      I think we need to update GTL: Golang, tan, laundry.
  • zaroth 8y ago
    There are plenty of tanning (UVB) lights at all different wattages available for purchase. I think the problem is the visible light output tends to be harsh, and the bulbs are highly inefficient, they are exensive, and they don’t last very long either. So there would be a lot of problems to solve, not the least of which is the cultural issue you raise of scaremongering around UVB exposure in the first place.
• mtgx 8y ago
  > Using a vitamin d lamp however was a world changer within days Which one do you recommend?
  • rapsey 8y ago
    I mentioned the model in another reply. Androv 3000
• BerislavLopac 8y ago
  There is research implying that levels of vitamin D are only an indicator of good health, and does not cause it (i.e. correlation instead of causation): https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
  • graeme 8y ago
    OP would still likely be fixing their problem though, right? That article says it is the sun exposure itself that has a positive effect, and vitamin D is the byproduct. To be clear, that's a really useful article, just want to clarify that your intent is indeed to explain why vitamin D wouldn't work but a UVB lamp would.
    • BerislavLopac 8y ago
      Exactly.
    • amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      Another possibility: higher vitamin D levels are associated with health because people who are outside more might be getting more exercise, and it's really the exercise that is doing it. It's hard to disentangle all these things.
• api 8y ago
  I live in Southern California and it's common for people to have these effects when moving here from darker locales and spending time outside. My severe insomnia almost vanished after coming here.
• gerbilly 8y ago
  Which lamp do you use?
• ip26 8y ago
  Those concerned about low vitamin D levels can get more of the vitamin through foods. Supplementing with D3 had very limited effect. Non sequitur. Pills are not food.
• TremendousJudge 8y ago
  >was a world changer within days Question, what were your health issues and what changes did you see that quickly?
  • rapsey 8y ago
    Magnesium deficiency and a general mineral imbalance that resulted in severe insomnia. I also developed a bunch of food intolerances that were getting ever worse. I was supplementing with a lot of magnesium. Sleep returned very quickly, my need for supplementing magnesium also dropped in days.
    • graeme 8y ago
      How were you measuring magnesium need, blood tests?
  • atomic77 8y ago
    After reading the "Big Vitamin D Mistake" article on HN in 2017 I also started experimenting with larger doses of Vitamin D and can attest to life-changing effects. It has been like a permanent +5 to constitution; I am now almost through my second winter without getting sick, something inconceivable for me as a kid growing up with asthma and a whole range of puffers, and always prone to debilitating sinus infections that told hold in January and never really let up sometime around April.
    • tomcam 8y ago
      That is amazing. What kind of vitamin D in at what levels did you settle on?
      • atomic77 8y ago
        I initially started with 1000 IU of Vitamin D3, Costco brand, and eventually settled on 5000 as I noticed improvements in energy level as I took more. I am at 43 latitude so I only start taking it in mid-November and start weening myself off it in late March (you never really know if/when spring will happen up here in Toronto :)
• DenisM 8y ago
  A related anecdote: I dabbled in light therapy and found the first lamp I tried [1] very effective. However I have also started receiving comments from my colleagues about my nice new facial tan, in the dead of winter. I freaked out because the lamp was in my field of view 30 minutes per day every day without any eye protection, and sent the lamp back to where I bought it. Subsequently I have tried three different LED-based lamps and they seem to have no effect. I have carefully measured the light output and placed myself at proper distance to get the requisite 10,000 lux in all cases. No dice. Here's the kicker - that lamp [1] appears to be the one used in some of the light therapy research (that's why I got it). It is entirely possible that much of light-therapy research was contaminated by badly designed lamps. There is no FDA certification for any of this as far as I know. [1] Carex Day-Light Classic Plus Bright Light Therapy Lamp. Supposedly UV-filtered.
  • MPSimmons 8y ago
    How is a Vitamin D lamp supposed to promote the creation of Vitamin D without UV?
    • fitzroy 8y ago
      These "light therapy" lamps don't. They just supposedly improve mood from the exposure to bright light itself and don't claim to produce vitamin D.
    • logfromblammo 8y ago
      It only blocks most of the UV. The lamp itself is blasting a very intense amount of light, so that the circadian-sensitive mechanisms in your eyes are fooled into thinking you're outside on a bright summer day. The vitamin D is secondary to the main function of the lamp, which is to be incredibly bright in comparison to most indoor lights. The light-therapy lamp must be aimed at the eyes (even for blind people!). It just doesn't work as well if you can't see it directly. You would have to pump even more light into the room to get the same amount reflected off of other surfaces. Also, the lamp could be putting out UVA and not much UVB, so it could tan without producing much vitamin D. For just the vitamin D, I'd get a "5.0" UVB lamp in a bare-bulb fixture, designed and sold for indoor avian and reptile pets. Aim at arms and hands, and away from the eyes. They're about $15 per bulb, and should be replaced every 6 months, as the UVB output degrades over time. Afterward, they work perfectly fine as compact fluorescents, behind glass or under lampshades, for several more months, albeit shaped inconveniently for some fixtures. A "10.0" bulb is for desert-species pets. The UV output is too high for the overall lamp brightness, and may damage your eyesight, as human pupils don't constrict enough. I suppose you could wear sunglasses, but that seems counterproductive to just buying a lower-UV lamp.
• derefr 8y ago
  Were you measuring in observed serum vitamin D levels, or just in subjective wellbeing? Light therapy fixes Seasonal Affective Disorder but doesn’t necessarily do so by increasing vitamin D production.
• rossdavidh 8y ago
  The evidence on this seems to be changing frequently, not unlike the evidence on whether taking vitamin supplements is a good idea (https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-get-your-nutrients-from-food-or-from-supplements https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-ge...). Generally speaking, the latest science on nutrition seems to be more subject to later revision, or even reversal, than the latest science on, say, physics or geology. So, while we wait (perhaps decades) for nutrition to become a more reliable science, I like to consider it from an evolutionary angle. That which is very dissimilar to what my ancestors experienced, like plentiful sugar or a sedentary lifestyle, is more likely to be bad for my health. Exposure to the sun for hours a day, including the UV part, was part of our ancestors' lifestyle from the beginnings of our species, until a few decades ago. Now it is possible that this is the exception, and we should keep ourselves shielded from UV at all times even though it was what we evolved for. But... - we don't now much about our skin microbiome, but we know we have one and it matters, and it seems unlikely that removing all UV would not impact that - we know there's an impact on vitamin D levels, but the details of that are still unknown - we know that eczema, psoriasis, and other skin conditions have been rising in recent decades, since the "always wear sunscreen" advice became common Now, many that's all a coincidence, and UV is bad for us, and lack of UV is good for us, regardless of the fact that it's the environment we evolved for. But I'm skeptical.
  • wongarsu 8y ago
    There's another important factor to consider, and that's how we expose ourselves to UV. Our ancestors used to be outside most of the day, allowing skin pigmentation to adapt to the regional and seasonal UV levels. Until agriculture came along fairly recently we also lived mostly in the shade of the forest and not in direct sunlight. Compare that to today, where UV exposure mostly means exposing the skin to massive bursts of UV for short times, at best in an effort to build skin pigmentation that isn't sufficient. That's completely different and much more damaging, leading to the general feeling that any UV is bad.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
• chaoticmass 8y ago
  And here I was thinking I was OK because I drink vitamin D supplemented whole milk.
• shirro 8y ago
  Narrowband uvb is a very effective treatment for some skin conditions. The mechanism is totally different to vitamin D and oral supplementation basically has no effect. UV exposure is a significant health risk in some parts of the world and the public information campaigns to reduce exposure seem well justified. But I wonder if there isn't a case for a narrowband uvb sunscreen that only lets those dangerous but highly effective dna mutating rays through along with some sort of cheap and reliable dosimetry.