Yeah, my mom is in a nursing home, temporarily, and I bet you won't find many patients there who make it past 85. If they do make it to 85, they don't know it.

Deb34, I am curious as to how did the sun affect you before? Did you burn easily?

I never used to burn at all when I was a kid, I tanned really dark, really fast.

Then in my mid-20's I was officially diagnosed PCOS etc and have been getting progressive paler and burning since then.

Last spring, my skintone changed slightly more golden and I thought i was on the road to getting my D levels back. I was scared to take D during the summer so I stopped until last November when I began again. I've taken D regularly since then but my skintone has become pale again and burned recently. I guess I'll just continue with the D over the summer and see if I can built a sun tolerance....

I think to intelligent people my meaning is clear enough.
Indeed that is why I suggest people restrict sun exposure to 20~30mins and then cover up go indoors cool off allow the d3 to absorb and then repeat with another 20~30minute session.

I don't think you have supported your case with sufficient up to date relevant information. I don't see why I should waste my time following links which have no value or interest to me. If you thought they were worth my consideration you would present them here and I will then explain why each particular link may be regarded with skepticism.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE?
I have shown you the reason's why I believe 137.5nmol/l is associated with least chronic disease incidence
There are sufficient links on that chart to
All Cancers: Lappe JM, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:1586-91.
Breast: Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Grant WB, Garland FC.
Breast cancer risk according to serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D: Meta-analysis of Dose-Response (abstract).American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting, 2008.
Reference serum 25(OH)D was 5 ng/ml. Garland, CF, et al. Amer Assoc Cancer Research Annual Mtg, April 2008,.
Colon: Gorham ED, et al. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32:210-6.
Diabetes: Hyppönen E, et al. Lancet 2001;358:1500-
Endometrium: Mohr SB, et al. Prev Med. 2007;45:323-4. Falls: Broe KE, et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:234-9.
Fractures: Bischoff-Ferrari HA, et al. JAMA. 2005;293:2257-64.
Heart Attack: Giovannucci et al. Arch Intern Med/Vol 168 (No 11) June 9, 2008.
Multiple Sclerosis: Munger KL, et al. JAMA. 2006;296:2832-8.
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Purdue MP, et al.
Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18:989-99.
Ovary: Tworoger SS, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:783-8. Renal: Mohr SB, et al. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:2705-9.
Rickets: Arnaud SB, 33% 54% 46%
Now if you have evidence to support your claim that 130nmol/l is dangerous where are your links to support your claim?

Indeed it is possible to keep people alive and in pain and needing 24hr care without any cognitive ability or physical energy. Such is the miracle of modern medicine we can achieve and maintain live without any quality whatsoever.

This always has me in fits of hysterics to think anyone can have been taken in by such a dumb piece of research. Now think why would anyone conduct a study spending hundreds of $ on MRI scans and not use a cheap $40 25(OH)D test to show what status those people actually had. Diet only represents 10% of your vitamin D intake. Only a fool would assess vitamin d status from a food diary.
You will have to do better than that if you want me to stop laughing at you.


Higher serum vitamin D concentrations are associated with longer leukocyte telomere length in women

It would be helpful if you could provide clickable links to the research you are relying on.

Frailty and Chronic Kidney Disease: The Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Surveyanother report indicating that low vitamin D status is a marker for Frailty and Chronic Kidney Disease:

The thing I don't get is the motivation to try and scare people off of D? Why make us afraid to go in the sun? Why convince people anything over 400IU can give you an overdose?

???????????????

Quote:
"High vitamin D intake is associated with brain lesions in elderly subjects, possibly as a result of vascular calcification (Payne et al., 2007).

Agreed. Additionally, those of us who are more well versed in traditional diets and Price & Masterjohn's research are aware of the synergistic protection provided by the other fat soluble nutrients, namely vitamins A & K2, both of which are shown to protect against inappropriate calcification in the system in the presence of even very large doses of vitamin D. It isn't just D toxicity or 'high D', it's an imbalance of the other synergistic nutrients that causes the negative affects of too much of one individual vitamin or nutritional substance. (I know I sound a little like a broken record). Please try to cast your gaze past these vacuum studies.

Agreed... You simply cannot look at a static study like this at one moment in time and draw a farfetched conclusion that no detectable vitamin D in the blood, thus having low or non-existent vitamin D levels, equates to centenarian-like longevity. So much of these individual's life picture is omitted from the story it is unintelligent to review such a correlation and associate it directly with causation, but then also believe it and pass it off as bible.

I'm half disappointed in myself that I am replying to such posts that are geared not towards attempting to educate us with an open mind, with our best health interests in mind, but which rather seem to be written only in the spirit of debate and allowing you to try and confirm your opinions and reassure yourself of your probable shaky confidence in your own conclusions. It seems to me that should you be completely convinced of your positions, you wouldn't feel the need to strike debate with others and reassure your own insecurity in your convictions, as you would be able to rest comfortably, confidently, and quietly that you were correct. The tone of your posts scream of a motive to prove others wrong and create conflict above trying to educate and inform professionally.

I'd like to request that you please do your best to form well cited and constructive inquiries and really question your motives before considering posting here in this thread again, rather than flashing random isolated quotations of specific studies just for the sake of trying to express that D is bad in an attempt to dissuade us from pursuing continual D adequacy. We're all about being open-minded to unconventional viewpoints, but not when they come off as poorly substantiated scare tactics. Shotgunning us here with multiple blog posts and study references and debate topics makes for a difficult time for (some of) us to respond to you thoroughly and timely.

Regards...

Zuleikaa,
Sunscreen doesn't make any real difference to vitamin D levels according to the expert who cited the study.

Hutchinson,
The world authority on vitamin D is Dr. Vieth , he uses nmol/L. There are always people who get mixed up between units and you were hardly helping by using an idiosyncratic abbreviation; it was far from clear - to me at least - what was meant. Luckily the posts I linked to in my first comment have 'clickable links' in the text references which can be easily consulted. I have posted links to the text and there are links to the references in the essays, look there to find things like this -
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842

Is anyone seriously suggesting that if the Italian centenarians had attained and maintained 'normal' (high) serum vitamin D levels, which would require supplementing, they would not be close to death at 100 years old. I agree with that actually: I think they would be long since dead. If I am lucky enough to reach 85 I'd like to have the vitamin d level of a 50 year old; that would mean I was in excellent health. But I wouldn't force my levels up by year round ingestion of an amount of vitamin D that has no precedent in the circumstances we all evolved in.

No Inuit ever got 5000 IU a day for more than a month; it would only be possible when there was a salmon run. And you are backing this up with a sunbathing technique that may short circuit the 'D' synthesis limiting mechanism resulting in several times more 'D' than nature intended per session. Why do you think that limit hasn't been removed by natural selection? I think that it's because the people who had the vitamin D limiting trait tended to survive more than those who lacked it.

The point about African Americans is that their bone health is BETTER than other people's despite the fact their levels of the form of vitamin D that is commonly measured is lower.

There is someone on this thread talking about more than doubling their already terrifyingly high dose of vitamin D. My conscience is clear.

Hi there Deb!

50,000 IUs a day??? Is that a typo???

This Lere person seems to be intent on hijacking this thread for his anti-vitamin D rants, which is really annoying!!! It means that queries like yours are kind of disappearing under all the verbal volleying here...

At any rate, going up to 50,000 a day is too much, methinks, just as a concerned citizen who's read this and that about vitamin D. The "normal" amount recommended is 5,000 per day.

Also, it is recommended that when you go out in the sun, that you don't let yourself get sunburnt! If you go out in the midday sun, about half an hour should be more than ample. Turn yourself round regularly and inspect your skin - if it's going pink, then go inside or cover up.

Did you fall asleep outside???

Take care,

amanda

From PhysOrg.com:

Chronic sunscreen use decreases circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. A preliminary study.

But most of the people reading this forum are from the USA where the standard unit is ng/mL however most USA posters and those who have their 25(OH)D tested as part of the grassrootshealth trial

There was no precedent for suggesting that people avoid sunlight and apply sunscreens. The consequence of that policy has been ever increasing levels of cancer and heart disease. The people who profit from current sun avoidance policies are those who sell the medical treatments required to keep people alive without adequate 25(OH)D status. Go check the number of medications most people over 65 take daily and compare that with the numbers taken by people the same age with adequate vitamin d status?
In fact it would be helpful if you participated in the Grassrootshealth trial as having some people determined to avoid sensible levels of supplementation would prove the point that those with lower 25(OH)D status indeed are more likely to be hospitalized.

YouTube - Whats a Vitamin D Deficiency? 50nmol/l and 75nmol/l are both deficiency states and neither are regarded as optimal by most vitamin D scientists.
Bone Mineral Density for most white skinned people isn't at it's optimal until 32ng/mL 80nmol/l is reached. However Heaney explains it far better in his video.
Having a store of D3 available enables most people to fight chronic disease better, as the body only acquires adequate stores above 50ng/ml 125nmol/l it is far more reasonable to regard 50~60ng/mL 125~150nmol/l as optimal than either 50~75nmol/l at which markers of ill health are measurable.

My source re. sunscreen can be found through the links I posted in my first comment, here it is anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/h...7real.html?_r=1

One would need to avoid the shade as well as the sun to lower 'D'

""Dr. Turnbull, working with Dr. Kimlin in Australia, showed that UVB light in the shade is strong enough to activate vitamin D production in the skin. Think of UVB as a ping-pong ball. It bounces off lots of things. When you go into the sun—if the sun is high enough in the sky—UVB light comes through the atmosphere and then starts bouncing around. It bounces at you from the ground, buildings, cars, and even the bottom of clouds. Sitting under a shade tree delivered about half as much UVB as sitting in the direct sun. Furthermore, the damaging UVA radiation under direct sun was three times more than under the shade tree. Sitting in the shade in the summer (and the winter in subtropical and tropical latitudes) is a good way to get vitamin D." (Vitamin D Council)


The grassrootshealth trial seems to be well designed, I have read that they suggest 2000 IU a day for those who are trying to raise levels. Some people might be healthier on 2000IU/d - if that meant them reducing from 5000IU /d.