Fri, May-29-09, 05:56
|
|
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
|
|
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jayppers
Zuleikaa, I have a document where I collected many a posts that I found interesting from this thread to keep for my personal collection. One of them had a post from you that mentioned that there was evidence that it was being understood that the D wasn't being destroyed to the extent once believed when getting continual sun exposure, justifying the fact that we are designed for higher D production/intake than is commonly believed. Might you be able to cite more specific resources as to where you come to this conclusion and posted the following in a previous D experiment thread of the past (on 02/09/2006)? No worries if not, just interested in looking into that further.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuleikaa
The higher hurdle for vitamin D deficiency makes more sense to me in light of the vitamin D status of people native to the tropics; they have vitamin D levels ranging from 125 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L. Further, they've now discovered that the body doesn't just shut down vitamin D production but can produce in excess of 50,000 IUs of vitamin D per day. I know of that 50k+ some is stored for winter but, in that case, to me, a higher level RDA makes even more sense.
To me having a FDA mandated "safe" level of 2,000 IUs when your own skin can produce in excess of 50,000 IUs of vitamin D per day during the summer from prolonged or repeated exposure is ridiculous.
|
Jason
I can't remember where I read that but it made a definite impact on me. I think it's why a level of <200 ng/ml. has become the safe standard.
|