Whats the deal with Vit D?

[BookGoddes]

What is the deal with Vit D. Is Sun light and Milk just not enough? (Not that I can go within 5 feet of milk without gaining weight now! :lol: ) But I am concerned about my health and my children.

We live in Arizona but do not get out enough in the sun I think. We take walks, at night! :help:

What is the best way to help increase my Vit D, brand? Cost? And how can I help my children?

[Hutchinson]

What is the deal with Vit D.The first point that we need to understand is that NATURALLY, when exposed to full body sunshine our bodies attain and maintain a 25(OH)D status around 125~250nmol/l 50~100ng

The body uses Cholecalciferol in exactly the same way as it does the biologically identical Vitamin D3 it makes itself so there is no good reason to believe that regularly using supplemental D3 to achieve the levels normally acquired by sun exposed individuals is harmful.


Is Sun light not enough? The problem is getting sufficient at the right time so you both avoid burning and excessive exposure to UVA. At latitude 52 where I live it is indeed difficult to spend sufficient time in the sun, because we have a lot of cloud and wind and spending a lot of time fully naked is not socially acceptable. I think regular full body sun exposure is worth doing and is a good idea to boost status (you cannot overdose on vit d from sun exposure as the body only absorbs what it needs and any d3 remaining near the surface of the skin gets processed on into substances the body does not use at all so it's wasted. So getting your minimum daily requirement from supplements and boosting levels to acquire a reservoir of D3 for use in emergencies seems sensible to me.

and Milk just not enough? Where milk is fortified (not in EU or UK) this may be done with D2 and some people do not absorb or utilise d2 efficiently so you cannot assume that drinking Vitd fortified milk is helpful, also when subject to independent testing most samples tend to contain less that stated on the label so it can never be relied on. As for the amounts even if you drank a full glass this would at best only contain 100iu so even if you also consumed a full portion of wild salmon (400iu) you would only achieve a tenth of your daily requirement.

(Not that I can go within 5 feet of milk without gaining weight now!
But I am concerned about my health and my children. The earlier children start using effective strength supplements the healthier they will be as adults. Those babies getting 2000iu/daily supplemental D3 grew up to have an 80% lower incidence of Type 1 diabetes in later life. Generally speaking 1000iu/daily for each 25lbs should achieve optimum status.

We live in Arizona but do not get out enough in the sun I think. We take walks, at night! :help: Providing your shadow is shorter than your height this usually indicates that UVB is present and Vitamin d can be made. So for UK readers the best time is midday when shadows are shortest but for you in Arizona, because of the danger of sunburn at midday, you may have to use the times when your shadow is nearer but not greater than your height.

What is the best way to help increase my Vit D, brand?
these 5000iu are what I have used. (https://secure.bio-tech-pharm.com/detail.aspx?product_id=18&cat_id=2&subcat_id=0)
If you also give your children liquid omega 3 fish oil (http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?pid=747&at=0) then getting these 50,000iu[/url] from the same source would be a good idea. A 40 portion sample as shown in the link could be supplemented with the contents of 2 capsules 100,000iu/d3 to provide 2500iu/daily together with a sensible amount of omega 3.

Cost? And how can I help my children?Well that solution costs 60cents for the D3 +12.83 = 13.43 for 40 days supply omega 3 and D3

These Carlsons 2000iu (http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?pid=7255860309350762561&at=0) are recommended by Dr Davis from the heartscanblog.

Dr Cannell has suggestions for supplementing children with D3 here (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-july.shtml)

If you think drops would be easier here are some to consider (http://www.iherb.com/Search.aspx?kw=vitamin%20d%20drops)

UK readers averse to importing from the USA may be interested in these 2000iu (http://www.thevitaminservice.com/product_detail.asp?id=1009173)

these 5000iu in olive oil seem a reasonable price (http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?pid=7278141827322434885&at=0)

Apart from breastfeeding mothers it makes very little difference if you supplement daily or weekly providing the total iu divided by the number of days = a sensible amount. Dr Davis's findings at Wisconsin (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html) those who live further north may need more those further south may need somewhat less, depending on skin colour, bodyweight and time spent outdoors.

Regular testing is the ideal way of keeping track of your status (http://www.grassrootshealth.org/daction/index.php) As it generally takes around 3 months to replete a body and the vast majority of people have significantly less that optimum status it is generally safe for an adult to supplement for 3 months at around 5000iu and then check to see how much more they require to achieve a status over 50ng 125nmol/l or between 60~70ng 150~175nmol/l for perfectionists.

For people with limited incomes using the IHERB rewards codes provides a way to reduce costs, this is particularly so for those importing to the UK where customs duties are levied on the value of the order. Reducing the value by obtaining discounts enables you to sneek under the tax threshold and save not only the tax but also the £8 handling charge the Post Office adds. My code is WAB666 but I'm sure there are plenty of others about.

Details of the rewards program can be found on the Iherb site. We wouldn't sneer at people taking advantage of all legal means of reducing their tax bills so in these recessionary times we should be doing all we can to enable scientifically proven effective strength supplements being made available as cheaply as possible to those on limited incomes.

Bear in mind this new article by Mike Adams on Vitamin D3 (http://www.naturalnews.com/025495.html)

[PS Diva]

Is Sun light and Milk just not enough?
No, it is not enough! I'd consider a supplement for everyone in the family.

[Starina]

Excellent response. May I refer others to you post Hutchinson? It would save me a lot of time compiling all of this info myself.

[BookGoddes]

Hutchinson, thank you so so much! The URL you tried to put in for the childrens items does not work so I am a little lost to what you where talking about!

[Hutchinson]

Hutchinson, thank you so so much! The URL you tried to put in for the childrens items does not work so I am a little lost to what you where talking about!
Sorry 50,000iu (https://secure.bio-tech-pharm.com/detail.aspx?product_id=20&cat_id=2&subcat_id=0)
These capsules slide apart if you use your fingernails to grip the gelatine covers at the end. Do it over a glass or clean tissue. The contents are a fine white powder.

You can put this powder into a glass with some of the omega 3 fish oil from the bottle, stir it until you it looks as if all the powder has dissolved, then pour it back into the omega 3 fish oil bottle, put the lid on, and give it a good shake. If may be worth giving it a shake each time you use it as well, but, as Vit d3 is soluble in oil their shouldn't be an problem. I'd write on the bottle that each tsp now contains 2500iu. or whatever 50,000 divided by the number of tsps contained in bottle equals.

If you wanted all your family to benefit and ensuring they each individually remembered to take their vitamin D was a problem, you may want to consider using the contents of ONE OF THESE into your cooking.

If you sprinkled the white powder into a cookie mix and made sure it was well mixed in then you could reasonably assume that each cookie contains the same percentage of the 50,000iu. So dividing the mixture equally to make 25 biscuits and each biscuit has 2000iu.

This may be a good idea for elderly relatives who get overwhelmed by the number of tablets they are supposed to be taking. It should work for any meal that uses fat/oil so you could add it to the salad dressing as easily.

PS Of course I am delighted that others link to my posts to spread the word. Providing you understand the importance of raising your 25(OH)D to the level associated with least incidence of chronic disease that's all that matters to me.
I am on a fixed income myself so I understand why many people are under financial pressure at the moment and may be interested in obtaining effective strength supplements at the cheapest possible price.
For that reason I go on about the IHERB rewards program.
If people can increase their discount credits by spreading the word that generally speaking IHERB are as cheap as elsewhere, offer an efficient service and by using the discounts available that may allow UK readers to get under the customs tax threshold that may be helpful to some of the readers here.

[triplemom]

Thanks, Hutchinson - good post. I added vitamin D to my regimen this past year.

[Starina]

Thank you Hutchinson.
"Providing you understand the importance of raising your 25(OH)D to the level associated with least incidence of chronic disease that's all that matters to me."
This is my goal also.

[Nancy LC]

Are you sure the Vit. D doesn't get degraded by cooking?

[M Levac]

What is the deal with Vit D. Is Sun light and Milk just not enough? (Not that I can go within 5 feet of milk without gaining weight now! :lol: ) But I am concerned about my health and my children.

We live in Arizona but do not get out enough in the sun I think. We take walks, at night! :help:

What is the best way to help increase my Vit D, brand? Cost? And how can I help my children?
That depends on what you believe. Is the Atkins plan good enough for your children? Or do you feed them cake, candy, chocolate, pasta, corn flakes, potatoes, rice, soy, bread, nutella, skim milk, margarine, cookies, and sugar?

If you feed your kids a high carb diet, I doubt supplementing with vitamin D will make much of a difference. But then if you feed your kids the same thing you feed yourself, in this case all good things on the Atkins plan, supplementing with anything won't do much of a difference either.

Why would a healthful diet, the Atkins plan, need supplementation anyway? It's a healthful diet. How could supplements improve this? On the other hand, if you want peace of mind, then go ahead and supplement with anything you want, including vitamin D. But then, do you want peace of mind, or do you want health?

Are your kids healthy now? I gotta ask myself, why would a healthy kid need supplements?

[Hutchinson]

Are you sure the Vit. D doesn't get degraded by cooking?Yes I wouldn't have suggested it otherwise. There is a bakery in USA I read about that makes Vit d enriched biscuits and Vitamin D is a stable compound. Neither cooking nor long-term storage significantly reduce vitamin D levels in food. (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=110)

[Nancy LC]

Yes I wouldn't have suggested it otherwise. There is a bakery in USA I read about that makes Vit d enriched biscuits and Vitamin D is a stable compound. Neither cooking nor long-term storage significantly reduce vitamin D levels in food. (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=110)
Good to know, thanks!

[Hutchinson]

If you feed your kids a high carb diet, I doubt supplementing with vitamin D will make much of a difference.While I agree that it is unreasonable to expect any amount of vitamin D to compensate for the adverse effects of poor dietary and lifestyle choices it is also common sense that the 900+Vitamin D receptors cannot function as they evolved with anything less than the natural level of 25(OH)D our genes are programmed to attain and maintain given ample full body sun exposure as we evolved. Over 200+ different enzyme actions depend on having a reservoir of vitamin d to power the formation of the active hormone at it's maximum velocity.

Why would a healthful diet, the Atkins plan, need supplementation anyway?
This thread is particularly about vitamin D and no amount of healthy eating, Atkins or otherwise, can possibly provide sufficient vitamin D for normal people. With Full body Sun Exposure in Arizona it should be possible to get sufficient vitamin d but only at the risk of increasing skin cancer incidence. I think a compromise is best, that is some regular full body non burning sun exposure in short sessions through the day combined with a basic effective amount of vitamin d from supplements. Allow 5 minutes full body prone exposure for each 1000iu. but remember if your skin burns that means all the vitamin D near the surface of the skin will be wasted, it gets processed on into substances the body doesn't use and therefore is not available to repair the damage.

It's a healthful diet. How could supplements improve this? To correct omega 3 insufficiency, most people cannot afford to buy free range grass fed meat, or wild fish as opposed to farmed fish and may prefer to ensure their omega 3<>omaga 6 ratio is improved. This short power point presentation sets out the basics for improving omega 3 intake. (http://www.seafoodandhealth.org/docs/powerpoints/lands_ppt.pdf) (while also reducing omega 6 input)

Similarly much of our veg these days is grown on soil depleted of it's natural magnesium content. Supermarkets sell Veg by it's looks and not for it's nutritional content. If you can prove your fast grown hot house veg that may never have been near soil at any time has exactly the nutritional content as slowly grown outdoor veg grown on organically managed land then maybe it will be fine but I'd rather have good health and peace of mind.


why would a healthy kid need supplements?
May I suggest that it may be to improve their sheer muscle power and force so that they can stand up for themselves against the school bullies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033372)

[M Levac]

While I agree that it is unreasonable to expect any amount of vitamin D to compensate for the adverse effects of poor dietary and lifestyle choices it is also common sense that the 900+Vitamin D receptors cannot function as they evolved with anything less than the natural level of 25(OH)D our genes are programmed to attain and maintain given ample full body sun exposure as we evolved. Over 200+ different enzyme actions depend on having a reservoir of vitamin d to power the formation of the active hormone at it's maximum velocity.


This thread is particularly about vitamin D and no amount of healthy eating, Atkins or otherwise, can possibly provide sufficient vitamin D for normal people. With Full body Sun Exposure in Arizona it should be possible to get sufficient vitamin d but only at the risk of increasing skin cancer incidence. I think a compromise is best, that is some regular full body non burning sun exposure in short sessions through the day combined with a basic effective amount of vitamin d from supplements. Allow 5 minutes full body prone exposure for each 1000iu. but remember if your skin burns that means all the vitamin D near the surface of the skin will be wasted, it gets processed on into substances the body doesn't use and therefore is not available to repair the damage.

To correct omega 3 insufficiency, most people cannot afford to buy free range grass fed meat, or wild fish as opposed to farmed fish and may prefer to ensure their omega 3<>omaga 6 ratio is improved. This short power point presentation sets out the basics for improving omega 3 intake. (http://www.seafoodandhealth.org/docs/powerpoints/lands_ppt.pdf) (while also reducing omega 6 input)

Similarly much of our veg these days is grown on soil depleted of it's natural magnesium content. Supermarkets sell Veg by it's looks and not for it's nutritional content. If you can prove your fast grown hot house veg that may never have been near soil at any time has exactly the nutritional content as slowly grown outdoor veg grown on organically managed land then maybe it will be fine but I'd rather have good health and peace of mind.



May I suggest that it may be to improve their sheer muscle power and force so that they can stand up for themselves against the school bullies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033372)
None of this tells us why 25-D is low. Nor does it tell us if low 25-D is the cause of all those problems. Nor does it tell us that supplementing with vitamin D will improve, or worsen, anything. At best, it tells us there's a problem and 25-D is merely an indicator of this problem.

A healthy kid doesn't need supplements. He's healthy. Unless, of course, we believe in preventative medicine. But look what kind of trouble that got us into. Also, to claim that supplements will help with muscle growth is like claiming that the diet is deficient in some respect. But then that's a contradiction because the kid is healthy. If he's healthy, then his diet is not deficient.

To claim that no amount of healthy eating can possibly supply enough vitamin D is like claiming that we don't exist, that we are not here, that we did not survive all those millions of years to get where we are now. How did we survive all this time without supplementation whatsoever? Of course, the answer is that the food we eat today is deficient, that the soil is depleted, and so forth. That's a contradiction. We have the best technology possible to grow the best foods possible to raise the best animals possible. How can we claim that we produce deficient foods?

The original poster follows the Atkins plan. By all accounts, this plan is not deficient in any nutrient. If anything, it returns us to good health. If it was deficient in any nutrient, it would not return us to good health. Unless, of course, it was merely a step up from the sorely deficient food pyramid. Anything is a step up from this. But the Atkins plan is not merely a step up from this. It's better by leaps and bounds.

Before we convince ourselves that we need supplementation, we must first convince ourselves that the diet we eat is deficient. Let's ask the Atkins proponents. Indeed, let's ask the original poster if her diet is deficient. Then, if she answers that it is deficient, let's ask her why she continues to eat a deficient diet. Because ultimately, that's what she is asking us.

[PS Diva]

To claim that no amount of healthy eating can possibly supply enough vitamin D is like claiming that we don't exist, that we are not here, that we did not survive all those millions of years to get where we are now. How did we survive all this time without supplementation whatsoever? Of course, the answer is that the food we eat today is deficient, that the soil is depleted, and so forth. That's a contradiction. We have the best technology possible to grow the best foods possible to raise the best animals possible. How can we claim that we produce deficient foodsOur main source of vitamin D was never through food. It was from sunlight. And the amount of sunlight we get is NOT the same that our forebears got. A great majority of us spend our days indoors, only venturing outside after we have slathered on the sunscreen.

I personally DO believe in preventative medicine. That's why I exercise, even though I am already healthy. And it is why I try to eat healthfully, even though I am healthy. And I take supplements, because my health has improved since I started taking them.

[M Levac]

Our main source of vitamin D was never through food. It was from sunlight. And the amount of sunlight we get is NOT the same that our forebears got. A great majority of us spend our days indoors, only venturing outside after we have slathered on the sunscreen.

I personally DO believe in preventative medicine. That's why I exercise, even though I am already healthy. And it is why I try to eat healthfully, even though I am healthy. And I take supplements, because my health has improved since I started taking them.
If supplements helped then this just means the diet was deficient. If the diet was adequate, supplements couldn't improve it. If anything, for an adequate diet, supplements would only disrupt this adequacy and probably cause a deficiency that wasn't there before.

The sun is just as it was and will remain so for millions of years to come. What's left is the earth's atmosphere and our clothing and sunscreen and makeup. For clothing and stuff, we can show that the Inuit wear clothes and have done so for several thousands of years yet suffer no deficiency whatsoever. But then that doesn't agree with the claim that vitamin D doesn't come from food because that would be the only significant source of it. Yet the Inuit who eat only caribou for long periods don't suffer any deficiency either. So much for that idea. So really all that's left is the earth's atmosphere and its filtering power of vitamin D producing rays.

We have those who claim that the ozone layer is depleted so more sunlight comes in. If we agree with this, we have to concede that more sunlight produces more vitamin D. Then we have all those people who claim that we produce so much carbon, yada yada. This idea has been debunked, I think. But the guy doesn't want to return his Nobel Prize.

And here's an alternative to the popular vitamin D perception:
http://mpkb.mp-dev.com/doku.php/home:pathogenesis:vitamind:home#science_behind_vitamin_d
http://mpkb.mp-dev.com/doku.php/home:pathogenesis:vitamind:deficiency#vitamin_d_deficiency_vs._disease_process

It looks to me like the vitamin D idea has too many obstacles to overcome before it can be taken seriously.

[Hutchinson]

And here's an alternative to the popular vitamin D perception:
http://mpkb.mp-dev.com/doku.php/home:pathogenesis:vitamind:home#science_behind_vitamin_d
http://mpkb.mp-dev.com/doku.php/home:pathogenesis:vitamind:deficiency#vitamin_d_deficiency_vs._disease_processThe Marshall Protocol and other fairy tales (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/marshall-protocol-and-other-fairy-tales.html)In the same way it is simply unreasonable troll like behavior for individuals who lack the intelligence to grasp that this is a site for those interested in understanding more about the science and practice of a low carbohydrate way of eating, to repeatedly post on topics challenging the whole ethos of low carbohydrate diets so it is simply unreasonable for people who believe in fairy tales to expect to be taken seriously in threads devoted to passing on science based accurate information about Vitamin D3, to other readers.

It looks to me like the vitamin D idea has too many obstacles to overcome before it can be taken seriously.It looks to me that you have failed to understand that the human body evolved to live naked and naturally, given adequate full body exposure to sunlight, attains and maintains a 25(OH)D status above 50ng.

Anyone eating a paleo style, low carbohydrate, low glycemic, index diet need to ensure their body also has a paleo style 25(OH)D level to ensure that body benefits from the impact of the better control of glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity optimum vitamin D status produces.

Only when you produce scientific evidence that what Hollis is saying here is fundamentally flawed will I consider anything you say seriously. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096)

[M Levac]

The Marshall Protocol and other fairy tales (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/marshall-protocol-and-other-fairy-tales.html)In the same way it is simply unreasonable troll like behavior for individuals who lack the intelligence to grasp that this is a site for those interested in understanding more about the science and practice of a low carbohydrate way of eating, to repeatedly post on topics challenging the whole ethos of low carbohydrate diets so it is simply unreasonable for people who believe in fairy tales to expect to be taken seriously in threads devoted to passing on science based accurate information about Vitamin D3, to other readers.
It looks to me that you have failed to understand that the human body evolved to live naked and naturally, given adequate full body exposure to sunlight, attains and maintains a 25(OH)D status above 50ng.

Anyone eating a paleo style, low carbohydrate, low glycemic, index diet need to ensure their body also has a paleo style 25(OH)D level to ensure that body benefits from the impact of the better control of glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity optimum vitamin D status produces.

Only when you produce scientific evidence that what Hollis is saying here is fundamentally flawed will I consider anything you say seriously. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096)
Well, since you've opened the door. I'll just barge right in.

Please Hutchinson, if you can't discuss without alluding to the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the person you are speaking to, it's best if you did not discuss at all. Please take a moment to read and learn how arguing ad hominem weakens your position and strengthens mine.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
[...]
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given
As you can see, by arguing ad hominem, you change the subject, and you concede the opposing arguments. Only by discrediting me can you "win" the argument. The irony is that by trying this, you've just discredited yourself and your argument by extension.

[M Levac]

Anyone eating a paleo style, low carbohydrate, low glycemic, index diet need to ensure their body also has a paleo style 25(OH)D level to ensure that body benefits from the impact of the better control of glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity optimum vitamin D status produces
And Zug made sure he took blood samples to check his 25-D level.

Anybody who ate food before the advent of science ate food. Period. They had no nutritional science, they had no hypothetical requirement for X amount of sunlight exposure, they had no incentive to do anything for the sake of higher science. The only imperative was to survive. If that meant dressing up in animal skins to keep themselves warm through 8 months or more of the year, then that's what they did. If it meant eating ruminants all year long, then that's what they did.

The idea of supplements is only made valid by modern methods. Take away the modern method and the idea of supplements disappears along with all the arguments derived from modern method.

[Hutchinson]

The irony is that by trying this, you've just discredited yourself and your argument by extension.When someone exhibits the degree of pure ignorance and a total inabilty to see the blindingly obvious there comes a point when there is absolutely no point in continuing trying to provide links to science based evidence.

That point comes when people indicate that believe in fairy tales.

As it appear you cannot see that Paleo man did not have the same level of air pollution that we now have nor have you grasped the point that air pollution blocks UVB thus less UVB reaches the ground particularly under busy aircraft routes and heavily industrialised areas. The idea that lower 25(OH)D levels we see now are a partly a result of environmental changes is probably beyond you.

Similarly Paleo man led an outdoor existance, that also would mean higher Vitamin D status. We live mainly indoor lives and the tendency for children to stay under cover has also increased over the last few years so 25(OH)D levels will inevitably be lower. You appear not to have grasped that 90% of our Vitamin D status does not come from food but from sun exposure. It follows that the less time spent outdoors results in lower vitamin D status.

The use of sunblocks/sunscreens/uvb protective swimsuits and the campaigns to get people to use them have created sunphobia that discourages mothers from allowing their family members to expose bare unprotected skin to sun. Therefore time spent outdoors does NOT equate to UVB sun exposure. Many cosmetics are also made from ingredients that act as sunblock even if no UVB factor is declared. This is another good reason why Vitamin D status is declining.

The fact that you even wonder about why vitamin D levels are lower is simply an indication of your failure to comprehend matters that are so fundamental to the issue that the only person who is discredited here is M LEVAC.

[Hutchinson]

The idea of supplements is only made valid by modern methods. Take away the modern method and the idea of supplements disappears along with all the arguments derived from modern method.So are we to believe M LEVAC is now going to spend all day outdoors killing his own free range game wearing what paleo man wore?

Are we going to believe M Levac is this very moment gathering his organically grown vegetables and herbs from his organically managed plot, wearing is paleo style garments?

It simply isn't practical to reject entirely the modern methods of food production. Some of us aren't away with the fairies, we live in the real world wearing modern clothes and we live modern lives so that will inevitably have an impact on the amount of sun exposure that our skin receives and the amount of nutrients our greens/veggies/eggs/dairy and meats contain.

We can't all afford the cost of organically produced products and even commercially produced organic free range eggs are not the same as the ones our hens lay from foraging in our own field.

The idea that a modern man could get exactly the same nutritional benefit from eating commercially produced meat that paleo man got from hunting his own organically raised free range meat it utterly absurd and does absolutely no credit to the person suggesting such an idea.

[Nancy LC]

Let it go, Hutch. There isn't really any profit in debating this with him. He's got his mind made up and so do you. I'm envisioning rams battling it out... it just gives the ewes a headache to watch all that head-butting. :)

[M Levac]

Let it go, Hutch. There isn't really any profit in debating this with him. He's got his mind made up and so do you. I'm envisioning rams battling it out... it just gives the ewes a headache to watch all that head-butting. :)
Instead of saying my mind is made up, it would be more appropriate to say I changed my mind. Because that's what I did. In other words, I used to agree with Hutchinson, but not anymore. Now look what Hutchinson thinks of me. It's like he took it as a personal offense and is lashing out with all his anger. Tsk tsk.

[PS Diva]

For clothing and stuff, we can show that the Inuit wear clothes and have done so for several thousands of years yet suffer no deficiency whatsoever.You are right, I over generalized. For those who evolved near the equator, sunshine was the main source of vitamin D. For those in the northern latitudes it was cold water fish. Something I am not willing to consume no matter how many people tell me I should. So, I take my vitamin D as a supplement.

[M Levac]

You are right, I over generalized. For those who evolved near the equator, sunshine was the main source of vitamin D. For those in the northern latitudes it was cold water fish. Something I am not willing to consume no matter how many people tell me I should. So, I take my vitamin D as a supplement.
Unless it's a caribou year in which case they don't get enough vitamin D either. Yet they don't suffer any ill whatsoever. They don't have nutritional theory. They eat what they hunt and that's it. If they hunt caribou then that's what they eat.