7 ms·

Sunlight and Vitamin D (2013)

99 points by luu 2y ago

ugh123 2y ago
The gist: > As a result 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D influences a large number of biologic pathways which may help explain association studies relating vitamin D deficiency and living at higher latitudes with increased risk for many chronic diseases including autoimmune diseases, some cancers, cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, schizophrenia and type 2 diabetes >A three-part strategy of increasing food fortification programs with vitamin D, sensible sun exposure recommendations and encouraging ingestion of a vitamin D supplement when needed should be implemented to prevent global vitamin D deficiency and its negative health consequences.
- hu3 2y ago
  nit: Add an extra line between your lines for better formatting. HN eats single line-breaks.
hu3 2y ago
> It has been estimated that as much as 25% of health care dollars could be saved just by improving the world’s vitamin D status. Seems like a low hanging fruit for the government.
- lupire 2y ago
  Smells like BS. The source is a 1989 paper about a 1983 study about 37 people wth colon cancer.. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(89)91789-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    The issue you have is the study was from 1983 and you were expecting it to be repeated yesterday so the study must be bs? What a weird generation who won't watch an old movie until it's redone poorly.
- bolster 2y ago
  So you're saying lack of sun increases health care expenditure? Excellent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjJbhuwGkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjJbhuwGkU
- defrost 2y ago
  It certainly was, although capping sun exposure to pre cancer levels was the message: One of the most successful health campaigns in Australia's history was launched in 1981, when a cheerful seagull in board shorts, t-shirt and hat danced his way across our TV screens singing the jingle. 'Slip, Slop, Slap! It sounds like a breeze when you say it like that Slip, Slop, Slap! In the sun we always say 'Slip, Slop, Slap!' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nocIenCYg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nocIenCYg and then there was the Life, Be in It campaign (1975) promoting exercise and good diet, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqDlF8DUuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqDlF8DUuY
- oarfish 2y ago
  That does seem very unreasonable or misleading. If they are implying that everyone should just supplement, it would be bullshit, since current science as far as i know is that supplementation hardly does anything. Impeoving vitamin d status through solving the underlying conditions that cause it, this may be an argument, but then it's phrased completely the wrong way.
LAC-Tech 2y ago
I'm fair skinned and the ozone layer is very thin where I live, so I have to cover up a lot when I go outside. Which reminds me, I should take some vitamin D.
heavyset_go 2y ago
The CDC does not recommend seeking sunlight to promote the production of endogenous vitamin D[1]: > The skin can produce only a limited amount of vitamin D at one time. Once the body has reached this limit, spending more time in the sun will not continue to increase vitamin D levels. However, continued time in the sun will increase your skin cancer risk. There is no known level of UV exposure that would increase vitamin D levels without also increasing skin cancer risk. Vitamin D can be obtained safely through food and dietary supplements without the risks associated with overexposure to UV. Same thing with the EPA[2]: > Get Vitamin D safely through a diet that includes vitamin supplements and foods fortified with Vitamin D. Don't seek the sun. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/outdoors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/outdoors.htm [2] https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/sun-safety-tips https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/sun-safety-tips
- engineer_22 2y ago
  Reads like CYA warnings, not lifestyle advice
- swatcoder 2y ago
  "Please do not leave the mines. Everything you need is available within the mines; you must only do your mining. It is dangerous outside the mines. If you insist on leaving the mines, you will need our protections or you will die. You will need to do more more mining to be protected. Please do not leave the mines. You do not want to leave the mines. It is dangerous outside the mines"
  - heavyset_go 2y ago
    Here's what the article says before the quote I posted above: > Spending time outdoors can improve overall health and wellness. The outdoors offers many opportunities to be physically active. Time outdoors may also promote mental health and stress reduction. While enjoying the benefits of being outdoors, people can decrease skin cancer risk from too much UV exposure by using sun protection. Protect yourself by staying in the shade, wearing protective clothing, and applying and re-applying a broad spectrum sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 or higher. Communities can help by ensuring shade is available in public parks. Schools and businesses may consider adding shade to school grounds and places were people gather outside.
zer00eyz 2y ago
Wow, I find this funny because through the 50-70's letting kids sleep outside for a nap in the day time was normal in Scandinavian countries. I remember the 1980's photo of kids getting a solar bath in some Hoth like area of Russia in the winter. I like this study because it's starting to add "Sensible sun exposure" into the mix. I suspect that we're going to add "physical activity" to that next. We didn't evolve for 100k years to work at desks for 8 hours a day and hide in houses. Persistance hunting was an outdoor day time activity. Foraging was an out door day time activity. Heading animals was an out door day time activity. Farming was an...
- giantg2 2y ago
  I found out the doctors are recommending vitamin D drops for infants. Yet they're loaded with all sorts of junk, like caramel color, polysorbate, etc. Sunlight produces vitamin D, helps break down bilirubin, and produces other beneficial substances. I know which one I'd choose.
  - selcuka 2y ago
    Not all of them contain those additives [1] (I believe coconut oil is needed because cholecalciferol is not water soluble), but yes, I agree that they should not be pushed as a substitute for sunlight if you have the choice: > Each concentrated drop delivers 400IU of vitamin D3, the form naturally found in the body, blended with premium quality fractionated coconut oil. The sugarless formula has no artificial colours, flavours, or preservatives, so it won't interfere with feeding. [1] https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/ https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Nice! The ones at my pharmacies were filled with junk. This looks great.
- jerlam 2y ago
  Also from Scandinavian countries: The babies who nap in sub-zero temperatures (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988) "In some studies they found pre-schoolers who spent many hours outside generally - not just for naps - took fewer days off than those who spent most of their time indoors," she says.
cwbriscoe 2y ago
I have had psoriasis for over 30 years now. The only consistent thing that makes it go into regression is getting a lot of sun in the late spring / summer. Unfortunately I live in a northern state, so over half of the year I do not get UVB from the sun and my psoriasis starts coming back in the mid-late fall. I have tried Vitamin D supplements but they don't seem to work for me. Even at high dosages.
- adamtaylor_13 2y ago
  Fascinating! Both my wife and my mother have psoriasis and they both say the exact same thing! They both swear by sunlight as a way to treat it. My wife has actually gotten Dermatologist-applied blue light therapy which has done wonders for her scalp.
  - cwbriscoe 2y ago
    I will have to look into blue light therapy. I used to have psoriasis really bad on my scalp. This might sound gross to some people but what cured it for me was to not use shampoo & conditioner every day in the shower. I still wash well with warm water but ever since I stopped using "products" in my hair every day, I have not had an issue with scalp psoriasis in over 15 years. I will take naturally oily hair over scalp psoriasis any day.
    - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree. Most people aren’t willing to go through the oily phase, but if you go long enough your scalp will regulate its oil production and then you don’t have oily hair OR dry scalp. Source: haven’t used shampoo in over 8 years; have beautiful hair. ha
- elevaet 2y ago
  I remember some chatter on HN that sun exposure also causes the skin to produce nitric oxide, and that this is potentially under-studied.
- sheepolog 2y ago
objektif 2y ago
Is sunlight really very bad for you? There seems to be extra obsession to protect against sun in the US. Everyone is plastering their kid with sunscreen. I just do not know how much of it is true. If it was really bad for you places like Italy and Spain would be heavily impacted by it.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  When my kids were young we used sunscreen in moderation to prevent burns. Once they had a tan we didn't worry about it unless we were going to be sitting in the sun for hours.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  A lot of people with ancestors from the Mediterranean have darker skin, which could have a big impact. Ozone levels also differ around the planet.
- hanniabu 2y ago
  Gotta be concerned with the garbage in sunscreen too
- lhl 2y ago
  There have always been clear benefits to sun exposure. While I can't speak about what the public opinion is these days, there's plenty of recent research covering that seem to have balanced risk/benefit analysis. Alfredsson, Lars, Bruce K. Armstrong, D. Allan Butterfield, Rajiv Chowdhury, Frank R. de Gruijl, Martin Feelisch, Cedric F. Garland, et al. “Insufficient Sun Exposure Has Become a Real Public Health Problem.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14 (July 2020): 5014. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145014 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145014. Hoel, David G., Marianne Berwick, Frank R. de Gruijl, and Michael F. Holick. “The Risks and Benefits of Sun Exposure 2016.” Dermato-Endocrinology 8, no. 1 (October 19, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/19381980.2016.1248325 https://doi.org/10.1080/19381980.2016.1248325. Lindqvist, P. G., E. Epstein, K. Nielsen, M. Landin-Olsson, C. Ingvar, and H. Olsson. “Avoidance of Sun Exposure as a Risk Factor for Major Causes of Death: A Competing Risk Analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden Cohort.” Journal of Internal Medicine 280, no. 4 (October 2016): 375–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12496 https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12496.
jms 2y ago
One thing I've found helpful is that you can find out the current UV levels for your location, e.g. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-services/monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-index https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-services/monitoring/ultraviol... I live in the antipodes (near the ozone hole), am fair skinned, burn easily, and have had low vitamin d levels when I've had them checked. I cover up or am very careful with sunscreen when the UV is high, then try to do the opposite (no sunscreen, lots of exposure) when UV is at lower levels. The idea is to generate vitamin d at safer times while avoiding skin cancer. I also supplement with vitamin d pills.
fylham 2y ago
The author of this paper, Michael Holick, was a professor of mine and is highly controversial due to his industry conflicts of interest that he didn't disclose (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michael-holick.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michae...) and his seemingly perverse testimony in child-abuse cases (https://www.propublica.org/article/michael-holick-ehlers-danlos-syndrome-child-abuse-contrarian https://www.propublica.org/article/michael-holick-ehlers-dan...). I regard his research with high suspicion.
- defrost 2y ago
  His fixation is so intense that it extends to the dinosaurs. What if the real problem with that asteroid 65 million years ago wasn’t a lack of food, but the weak bones that follow a lack of sunlight? “I sometimes wonder,” Dr. Holick has written, “did the dinosaurs die of rickets and osteomalacia?” Isn't the whole article by a long shot - certainly an interesting counter point, thanks for the links and your thoughts.
  - steve1977 2y ago
    I’ve heard hypotheses more stupid than that.
    - defrost 2y ago
      True, it's not bad as a thought, I threw it in there to tease others into the full article, it's the suspicion of zeal driven by funding that's the more damaging charge. Still not as strong as the famous "Dinosaurs are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the other end" conjecture.
- leggomuhgreggo 2y ago
  What's controversial here? The benefits of Vitamin D is pretty well established ( it's a "vital mineral" after all.) I read the summary and didn't see anything very adventurous.
zerealshadowban 2y ago
If you decide to supplement vitD in winter time note that US government recommendations are way too low [1][2] compared to normal practices in Nordic countries: should be daily 3000 IU for kids (toddlers and up) and 8000 IU for adults. [1] It's not sufficient for kids to take the bare minimum that avoids rickets. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476526/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476526/) [2] Statistical error in estimation of the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D (https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?number=1915 https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?number=1915)
- agsz 2y ago
  This is anecdotal, but I can confirm this from my experience. I was taking 2000 IU per day, and I felt the effects of seasonal depression. When I increased it to 5000, I felt so much better.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  I agree that the recommended dose is probably too low, but part of the reason for the discrepancy may be poor absorption of many supplements. I ended up with side effects (racing heart and thirst that wouldn't go away - which reliably went away when I backed down the dose and came back when I upped it again) from only 2000IU/day (as an adult). But I was taking it in the form of drops under the tongue (and as a combined formulation of D3 and K2) which I suspect is absorbed much better than the typical pills which are swallowed.
travisp 2y ago
Yet nearly every controlled trial supplementing Vitamin D has limited or no effect, except maybe in the most deficient people. Many many trials have been conducted. Vitamin D advocates always have an excuse — it’s too little vitamin D; no, actually you also have to add Vitamin K2; etc Part of the problem of all the observational trials looking at vitamin d is that low vitamin d is a biomarker for being less healthy. People who are ill spend less time outdoors. People who spend more time outdoors are already healthier and are also getting other benefits from their outdoor activities. You can try to control for all of these things, but every time we actually try to test what happens if you give people Vitamin D, we find almost no benefit.
- karmajunkie 2y ago
  Well, I can tell you that I'm on a vitamin D supplement and there's very definitely a direct benefit to it treating early osteomalacia.
  - travisp 2y ago
    Yes, rickets and osteomalacia (when caused by vitamin d deficiency) are both treatable with vitamin d. Randomized controlled trials clearly show this, unlike the vitamin d trials for most other things that people are pushing vitamin d for. Everyone should probably have their blood level of vitamin d tested. Most people are not going to see dramatic changes to health from vitamin d supplementation.
ccleve 2y ago
This paper is from 2013. It is out-of-date. More recent large scale studies of Vitamin D supplementation show no benefit, except in cases of substantial deficiency. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z Sunlight, however, does show benefits. This suggests that Vitamin D is just a side effect of sunlight exposure, and does not by itself do any good.
- activescott 2y ago
  Interesting about "supplementation of vitamin D-replete individuals does not provide demonstrable health benefits". The OP article does clearly call out that the benefits of vitamin D are in cases of _vitamin D deficiency_. It goes on to state that there is a "worldwide vitamin D deficiency pandemic" and mentions that 32% of children and adults have a circulating concentration of 25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL (i.e. vitamin D deficient). So I think the broader point of the article was that many of us are vitamin D deficient, and those of us that are, have increased health risk, and that's why we need to supplement our vitamin D.
femto 2y ago
Australia recently updated its sun exposure guidelines to allow for the fact the some sun exposure is required to generate vitamin D. It's a balance, with influences from genetics, including skin colour. The advice is tailored for Australian conditions. Australia is the melanoma capital of the world[1], so it puts a fair bit of effort into trying to get this advice correct. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/13/australias-sun-safety-guidelines-updated-to-take-account-of-diverse-skin-types https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/13/austr... https://www.assc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Sun-Exposure-Summit-PositionStatement_V1.9.pdf https://www.assc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Sun-Expos... [1] https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/sunsmart https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us/policy-and-advocacy/posit...
cpncrunch 2y ago
Well, that review is quite old and out of date now. We now know that vitamin D doesn't in fact protect against these diseases (from the results of large vitamin D supplementation trials). However, a number of large studies show that sunlight itself does give significant protection against cancer and cardiovascular disease, and reduces all cause mortality. It is thought that this effect is due to skin-derived nitric oxide rather than vitamin D. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251
- nradov 2y ago
  We still don't know much about vitamin D supplementation one way or the other. Most of those large studies were badly flawed in that they gave rather arbitrary fixed doses to subjects rather than titrating doses to hit target blood levels.
  - cpncrunch 2y ago
    There have been a large number of trials now, and I see no mention of the flaws you outline in this review: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4673.short https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4673.short Not saying you're wrong, just curious if you can point out which trials were/weren't flawed in this way, and a reference to a review which mentions it.
    - nradov 2y ago
      I spot checked a few of the studies in that meta analysis and they all suffered from the exact same methodological flaw that I pointed out above. They administered fixed doses to subjects rather than titrating the doses up or down to hit target blood levels.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - cpncrunch 2y ago
        Yes, this is mentioned in the limitations of that review: "The dose of vitamin D used in included trials varied. Our study could not accurately compare equivalent daily vitamin D supplementation dose in the included trials because they all had different treatment regimens and dosing intervals (daily, weekly, monthly, or bolus doses). This might be one of the reasons why this study did not determine an effective daily dose of vitamin D supplementation. Furthermore, the vitamin D status before, during, and after treatment is useful to determine the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in improving the actual vitamin D status. Long term vitamin D status is expected to be a much more accurate, reliable, and important clinical parameter compared with a daily dose of vitamin D supplementation. However, previous trials were limited in providing such data. These limitations and uncertainties associated with vitamin D supplementation dose and vitamin D status in treatment and control groups warrant further investigation."
riffic 2y ago
Mushrooms when exposed to ultraviolet light can then have considerable amounts of dietary Vitamin D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_mushroom#Vitamin_D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_mushroom#Vitamin_D Otherwise there really isn't much in the diet that naturally or regularly contains it other than milk that has been supplemented.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
(2013)

99 points by luu 2y ago

The gist: > As a result 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D influences a large number of biologic pathways which may help explain association studies relating vitamin D deficiency and living at higher latitudes with increased risk for many chronic diseases including autoimmune diseases, some cancers, cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, schizophrenia and type 2 diabetes >A three-part strategy of increasing food fortification programs with vitamin D, sensible sun exposure recommendations and encouraging ingestion of a vitamin D supplement when needed should be implemented to prevent global vitamin D deficiency and its negative health consequences.

hu3 2y ago
nit: Add an extra line between your lines for better formatting. HN eats single line-breaks.

hu3 2y ago

> It has been estimated that as much as 25% of health care dollars could be saved just by improving the world’s vitamin D status. Seems like a low hanging fruit for the government.

lupire 2y ago
Smells like BS. The source is a 1989 paper about a 1983 study about 37 people wth colon cancer.. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(89)91789-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- ipaddr 2y ago
  The issue you have is the study was from 1983 and you were expecting it to be repeated yesterday so the study must be bs? What a weird generation who won't watch an old movie until it's redone poorly.
bolster 2y ago
So you're saying lack of sun increases health care expenditure? Excellent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjJbhuwGkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjJbhuwGkU
defrost 2y ago
It certainly was, although capping sun exposure to pre cancer levels was the message: One of the most successful health campaigns in Australia's history was launched in 1981, when a cheerful seagull in board shorts, t-shirt and hat danced his way across our TV screens singing the jingle. 'Slip, Slop, Slap! It sounds like a breeze when you say it like that Slip, Slop, Slap! In the sun we always say 'Slip, Slop, Slap!' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nocIenCYg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nocIenCYg and then there was the Life, Be in It campaign (1975) promoting exercise and good diet, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqDlF8DUuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqDlF8DUuY
oarfish 2y ago
That does seem very unreasonable or misleading. If they are implying that everyone should just supplement, it would be bullshit, since current science as far as i know is that supplementation hardly does anything. Impeoving vitamin d status through solving the underlying conditions that cause it, this may be an argument, but then it's phrased completely the wrong way.

LAC-Tech 2y ago

I'm fair skinned and the ozone layer is very thin where I live, so I have to cover up a lot when I go outside. Which reminds me, I should take some vitamin D.

heavyset_go 2y ago

The CDC does not recommend seeking sunlight to promote the production of endogenous vitamin D[1]: > The skin can produce only a limited amount of vitamin D at one time. Once the body has reached this limit, spending more time in the sun will not continue to increase vitamin D levels. However, continued time in the sun will increase your skin cancer risk. There is no known level of UV exposure that would increase vitamin D levels without also increasing skin cancer risk. Vitamin D can be obtained safely through food and dietary supplements without the risks associated with overexposure to UV. Same thing with the EPA[2]: > Get Vitamin D safely through a diet that includes vitamin supplements and foods fortified with Vitamin D. Don't seek the sun. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/outdoors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/outdoors.htm [2] https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/sun-safety-tips https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/sun-safety-tips

engineer_22 2y ago
Reads like CYA warnings, not lifestyle advice
swatcoder 2y ago
"Please do not leave the mines. Everything you need is available within the mines; you must only do your mining. It is dangerous outside the mines. If you insist on leaving the mines, you will need our protections or you will die. You will need to do more more mining to be protected. Please do not leave the mines. You do not want to leave the mines. It is dangerous outside the mines"
- heavyset_go 2y ago
  Here's what the article says before the quote I posted above: > Spending time outdoors can improve overall health and wellness. The outdoors offers many opportunities to be physically active. Time outdoors may also promote mental health and stress reduction. While enjoying the benefits of being outdoors, people can decrease skin cancer risk from too much UV exposure by using sun protection. Protect yourself by staying in the shade, wearing protective clothing, and applying and re-applying a broad spectrum sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 or higher. Communities can help by ensuring shade is available in public parks. Schools and businesses may consider adding shade to school grounds and places were people gather outside.

zer00eyz 2y ago

Wow, I find this funny because through the 50-70's letting kids sleep outside for a nap in the day time was normal in Scandinavian countries. I remember the 1980's photo of kids getting a solar bath in some Hoth like area of Russia in the winter. I like this study because it's starting to add "Sensible sun exposure" into the mix. I suspect that we're going to add "physical activity" to that next. We didn't evolve for 100k years to work at desks for 8 hours a day and hide in houses. Persistance hunting was an outdoor day time activity. Foraging was an out door day time activity. Heading animals was an out door day time activity. Farming was an...

giantg2 2y ago
I found out the doctors are recommending vitamin D drops for infants. Yet they're loaded with all sorts of junk, like caramel color, polysorbate, etc. Sunlight produces vitamin D, helps break down bilirubin, and produces other beneficial substances. I know which one I'd choose.
- selcuka 2y ago
  Not all of them contain those additives [1] (I believe coconut oil is needed because cholecalciferol is not water soluble), but yes, I agree that they should not be pushed as a substitute for sunlight if you have the choice: > Each concentrated drop delivers 400IU of vitamin D3, the form naturally found in the body, blended with premium quality fractionated coconut oil. The sugarless formula has no artificial colours, flavours, or preservatives, so it won't interfere with feeding. [1] https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/ https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Nice! The ones at my pharmacies were filled with junk. This looks great.
jerlam 2y ago
Also from Scandinavian countries: The babies who nap in sub-zero temperatures (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988) "In some studies they found pre-schoolers who spent many hours outside generally - not just for naps - took fewer days off than those who spent most of their time indoors," she says.

cwbriscoe 2y ago

I have had psoriasis for over 30 years now. The only consistent thing that makes it go into regression is getting a lot of sun in the late spring / summer. Unfortunately I live in a northern state, so over half of the year I do not get UVB from the sun and my psoriasis starts coming back in the mid-late fall. I have tried Vitamin D supplements but they don't seem to work for me. Even at high dosages.

adamtaylor_13 2y ago
Fascinating! Both my wife and my mother have psoriasis and they both say the exact same thing! They both swear by sunlight as a way to treat it. My wife has actually gotten Dermatologist-applied blue light therapy which has done wonders for her scalp.
- cwbriscoe 2y ago
  I will have to look into blue light therapy. I used to have psoriasis really bad on my scalp. This might sound gross to some people but what cured it for me was to not use shampoo & conditioner every day in the shower. I still wash well with warm water but ever since I stopped using "products" in my hair every day, I have not had an issue with scalp psoriasis in over 15 years. I will take naturally oily hair over scalp psoriasis any day.
  - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. Most people aren’t willing to go through the oily phase, but if you go long enough your scalp will regulate its oil production and then you don’t have oily hair OR dry scalp. Source: haven’t used shampoo in over 8 years; have beautiful hair. ha
elevaet 2y ago
I remember some chatter on HN that sun exposure also causes the skin to produce nitric oxide, and that this is potentially under-studied.
sheepolog 2y ago

objektif 2y ago

Is sunlight really very bad for you? There seems to be extra obsession to protect against sun in the US. Everyone is plastering their kid with sunscreen. I just do not know how much of it is true. If it was really bad for you places like Italy and Spain would be heavily impacted by it.

SoftTalker 2y ago
When my kids were young we used sunscreen in moderation to prevent burns. Once they had a tan we didn't worry about it unless we were going to be sitting in the sun for hours.
lazyasciiart 2y ago
A lot of people with ancestors from the Mediterranean have darker skin, which could have a big impact. Ozone levels also differ around the planet.
hanniabu 2y ago
Gotta be concerned with the garbage in sunscreen too
lhl 2y ago
There have always been clear benefits to sun exposure. While I can't speak about what the public opinion is these days, there's plenty of recent research covering that seem to have balanced risk/benefit analysis. Alfredsson, Lars, Bruce K. Armstrong, D. Allan Butterfield, Rajiv Chowdhury, Frank R. de Gruijl, Martin Feelisch, Cedric F. Garland, et al. “Insufficient Sun Exposure Has Become a Real Public Health Problem.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14 (July 2020): 5014. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145014 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145014. Hoel, David G., Marianne Berwick, Frank R. de Gruijl, and Michael F. Holick. “The Risks and Benefits of Sun Exposure 2016.” Dermato-Endocrinology 8, no. 1 (October 19, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/19381980.2016.1248325 https://doi.org/10.1080/19381980.2016.1248325. Lindqvist, P. G., E. Epstein, K. Nielsen, M. Landin-Olsson, C. Ingvar, and H. Olsson. “Avoidance of Sun Exposure as a Risk Factor for Major Causes of Death: A Competing Risk Analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden Cohort.” Journal of Internal Medicine 280, no. 4 (October 2016): 375–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12496 https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12496.

jms 2y ago

One thing I've found helpful is that you can find out the current UV levels for your location, e.g. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-services/monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-index https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-services/monitoring/ultraviol... I live in the antipodes (near the ozone hole), am fair skinned, burn easily, and have had low vitamin d levels when I've had them checked. I cover up or am very careful with sunscreen when the UV is high, then try to do the opposite (no sunscreen, lots of exposure) when UV is at lower levels. The idea is to generate vitamin d at safer times while avoiding skin cancer. I also supplement with vitamin d pills.

fylham 2y ago

The author of this paper, Michael Holick, was a professor of mine and is highly controversial due to his industry conflicts of interest that he didn't disclose (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michael-holick.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michae...) and his seemingly perverse testimony in child-abuse cases (https://www.propublica.org/article/michael-holick-ehlers-danlos-syndrome-child-abuse-contrarian https://www.propublica.org/article/michael-holick-ehlers-dan...). I regard his research with high suspicion.

defrost 2y ago
His fixation is so intense that it extends to the dinosaurs. What if the real problem with that asteroid 65 million years ago wasn’t a lack of food, but the weak bones that follow a lack of sunlight? “I sometimes wonder,” Dr. Holick has written, “did the dinosaurs die of rickets and osteomalacia?” Isn't the whole article by a long shot - certainly an interesting counter point, thanks for the links and your thoughts.
- steve1977 2y ago
  I’ve heard hypotheses more stupid than that.
  - defrost 2y ago
    True, it's not bad as a thought, I threw it in there to tease others into the full article, it's the suspicion of zeal driven by funding that's the more damaging charge. Still not as strong as the famous "Dinosaurs are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the other end" conjecture.
leggomuhgreggo 2y ago
What's controversial here? The benefits of Vitamin D is pretty well established ( it's a "vital mineral" after all.) I read the summary and didn't see anything very adventurous.

zerealshadowban 2y ago

If you decide to supplement vitD in winter time note that US government recommendations are way too low [1][2] compared to normal practices in Nordic countries: should be daily 3000 IU for kids (toddlers and up) and 8000 IU for adults. [1] It's not sufficient for kids to take the bare minimum that avoids rickets. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476526/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476526/) [2] Statistical error in estimation of the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D (https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?number=1915 https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?number=1915)

agsz 2y ago
This is anecdotal, but I can confirm this from my experience. I was taking 2000 IU per day, and I felt the effects of seasonal depression. When I increased it to 5000, I felt so much better.
nicoburns 2y ago
I agree that the recommended dose is probably too low, but part of the reason for the discrepancy may be poor absorption of many supplements. I ended up with side effects (racing heart and thirst that wouldn't go away - which reliably went away when I backed down the dose and came back when I upped it again) from only 2000IU/day (as an adult). But I was taking it in the form of drops under the tongue (and as a combined formulation of D3 and K2) which I suspect is absorbed much better than the typical pills which are swallowed.

travisp 2y ago

Yet nearly every controlled trial supplementing Vitamin D has limited or no effect, except maybe in the most deficient people. Many many trials have been conducted. Vitamin D advocates always have an excuse — it’s too little vitamin D; no, actually you also have to add Vitamin K2; etc Part of the problem of all the observational trials looking at vitamin d is that low vitamin d is a biomarker for being less healthy. People who are ill spend less time outdoors. People who spend more time outdoors are already healthier and are also getting other benefits from their outdoor activities. You can try to control for all of these things, but every time we actually try to test what happens if you give people Vitamin D, we find almost no benefit.

karmajunkie 2y ago
Well, I can tell you that I'm on a vitamin D supplement and there's very definitely a direct benefit to it treating early osteomalacia.
- travisp 2y ago
  Yes, rickets and osteomalacia (when caused by vitamin d deficiency) are both treatable with vitamin d. Randomized controlled trials clearly show this, unlike the vitamin d trials for most other things that people are pushing vitamin d for. Everyone should probably have their blood level of vitamin d tested. Most people are not going to see dramatic changes to health from vitamin d supplementation.

ccleve 2y ago

This paper is from 2013. It is out-of-date. More recent large scale studies of Vitamin D supplementation show no benefit, except in cases of substantial deficiency. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z Sunlight, however, does show benefits. This suggests that Vitamin D is just a side effect of sunlight exposure, and does not by itself do any good.

activescott 2y ago
Interesting about "supplementation of vitamin D-replete individuals does not provide demonstrable health benefits". The OP article does clearly call out that the benefits of vitamin D are in cases of _vitamin D deficiency_. It goes on to state that there is a "worldwide vitamin D deficiency pandemic" and mentions that 32% of children and adults have a circulating concentration of 25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL (i.e. vitamin D deficient). So I think the broader point of the article was that many of us are vitamin D deficient, and those of us that are, have increased health risk, and that's why we need to supplement our vitamin D.

femto 2y ago

Australia recently updated its sun exposure guidelines to allow for the fact the some sun exposure is required to generate vitamin D. It's a balance, with influences from genetics, including skin colour. The advice is tailored for Australian conditions. Australia is the melanoma capital of the world[1], so it puts a fair bit of effort into trying to get this advice correct. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/13/australias-sun-safety-guidelines-updated-to-take-account-of-diverse-skin-types https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/13/austr... https://www.assc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Sun-Exposure-Summit-PositionStatement_V1.9.pdf https://www.assc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Sun-Expos... [1] https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/sunsmart https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us/policy-and-advocacy/posit...

cpncrunch 2y ago

Well, that review is quite old and out of date now. We now know that vitamin D doesn't in fact protect against these diseases (from the results of large vitamin D supplementation trials). However, a number of large studies show that sunlight itself does give significant protection against cancer and cardiovascular disease, and reduces all cause mortality. It is thought that this effect is due to skin-derived nitric oxide rather than vitamin D. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251

nradov 2y ago
We still don't know much about vitamin D supplementation one way or the other. Most of those large studies were badly flawed in that they gave rather arbitrary fixed doses to subjects rather than titrating doses to hit target blood levels.
- cpncrunch 2y ago
  There have been a large number of trials now, and I see no mention of the flaws you outline in this review: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4673.short https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4673.short Not saying you're wrong, just curious if you can point out which trials were/weren't flawed in this way, and a reference to a review which mentions it.
  - nradov 2y ago
    I spot checked a few of the studies in that meta analysis and they all suffered from the exact same methodological flaw that I pointed out above. They administered fixed doses to subjects rather than titrating the doses up or down to hit target blood levels.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - cpncrunch 2y ago
      Yes, this is mentioned in the limitations of that review: "The dose of vitamin D used in included trials varied. Our study could not accurately compare equivalent daily vitamin D supplementation dose in the included trials because they all had different treatment regimens and dosing intervals (daily, weekly, monthly, or bolus doses). This might be one of the reasons why this study did not determine an effective daily dose of vitamin D supplementation. Furthermore, the vitamin D status before, during, and after treatment is useful to determine the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in improving the actual vitamin D status. Long term vitamin D status is expected to be a much more accurate, reliable, and important clinical parameter compared with a daily dose of vitamin D supplementation. However, previous trials were limited in providing such data. These limitations and uncertainties associated with vitamin D supplementation dose and vitamin D status in treatment and control groups warrant further investigation."

riffic 2y ago

Mushrooms when exposed to ultraviolet light can then have considerable amounts of dietary Vitamin D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_mushroom#Vitamin_D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_mushroom#Vitamin_D Otherwise there really isn't much in the diet that naturally or regularly contains it other than milk that has been supplemented.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

(2013)