Vitamin D

Tips on getting vitamin D for cancer prevention
Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT


Evidence is growing that vitamin D, which the skin makes from sunshine, is linked to lower risk of breast cancer and other cancers.

But that doesn't mean it's good to get a golden tan -- and certainly not a sunburn.

Vitamin D also is in certain foods and supplements, though the effectiveness varies. Here's the lowdown:



Q: How much sun should I get?

A: Many experts believe just 15 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen is sufficient and safe for most light-skinned people, but this is controversial.



Q: I'm black. Does my skin absorb enough ultraviolet rays to produce sufficient vitamin D?

Specialists think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful for dark-skinned people. But you'll have to read the label to find D-3 _ most multivitamins don't contain it.



Q: How much do I need?

A: Scientists think adults may need 1,000 international units (IUs) a day, possibly 1,500 for cancer prevention. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old. Any more can cause the body to retain dangerous amounts of calcium.



Q. What about food sources?

A. Vitamin D is in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. But diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood.



Q: For years, we've been told to use sunscreen. Shouldn't we be worried about skin cancer?

A: Sunscreen is advised for longer periods outdoors, to prevent skin cancer. Skin cancer is rarely fatal. Melanoma, the deadliest kind, accounts for less than 2 percent of cancer deaths. The risks posed by other, more common cancers is far greater.


___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

On May 16, 3:00 am, califch...@fidotel.com (Califchief) wrote:
> Tips on getting vitamin D for cancer prevention
> Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT
>
> Evidence is growing that vitamin D, which the skin makes from sunshine, is linked to lower risk of breast cancer and other cancers.
>
> But that doesn't mean it's good to get a golden tan -- and certainly not a sunburn.
>
> Vitamin D also is in certain foods and supplements, though the effectiveness varies. Here's the lowdown:
>
> Q: How much sun should I get?
>
> A: Many experts believe just 15 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen is sufficient and safe for most light-skinned people, but this is controversial.
>
> Q: I'm black. Does my skin absorb enough ultraviolet rays to produce sufficient vitamin D?
>
> Specialists think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful for dark-skinned people. But you'll have to read the label to find D-3 _ most multivitamins don't contain it.
>
> Q: How much do I need?
>
> A: Scientists think adults may need 1,000 international units (IUs) a day, possibly 1,500 for cancer prevention. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old. Any more can cause the body to retain dangerous amounts of calcium.
>
> Q. What about food sources?
>
> A. Vitamin D is in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. But diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood.
>
> Q: For years, we've been told to use sunscreen. Shouldn't we be worried about skin cancer?
>
> A: Sunscreen is advised for longer periods outdoors, to prevent skin cancer. Skin cancer is rarely fatal. Melanoma, the deadliest kind, accounts for less than 2 percent of cancer deaths. The risks posed by other, more common cancers is far greater.
>
> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my
current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's
recommendations is
for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L).

The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day.
Lud

On May 16, 10:07 am, Lud <Ludwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:00 am, califch...@fidotel.com (Califchief) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tips on getting vitamin D for cancer prevention
> > Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT
>
> > Evidence is growing that vitamin D, which the skin makes from sunshine, is linked to lower risk of breast cancer and other cancers.
>
> > But that doesn't mean it's good to get a golden tan -- and certainly not a sunburn.
>
> > Vitamin D also is in certain foods and supplements, though the effectiveness varies. Here's the lowdown:
>
> > Q: How much sun should I get?
>
> > A: Many experts believe just 15 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen is sufficient and safe for most light-skinned people, but this is controversial.
>
> > Q: I'm black. Does my skin absorb enough ultraviolet rays to produce sufficient vitamin D?
>
> > Specialists think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful for dark-skinned people. But you'll have to read the label to find D-3 _ most multivitamins don't contain it.
>
> > Q: How much do I need?
>
> > A: Scientists think adults may need 1,000 international units (IUs) a day, possibly 1,500 for cancer prevention. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old. Any more can cause the body to retain dangerous amounts of calcium.
>
> > Q. What about food sources?
>
> > A. Vitamin D is in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. But diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood.
>
> > Q: For years, we've been told to use sunscreen. Shouldn't we be worried about skin cancer?
>
> > A: Sunscreen is advised for longer periods outdoors, to prevent skin cancer. Skin cancer is rarely fatal. Melanoma, the deadliest kind, accounts for less than 2 percent of cancer deaths. The risks posed by other, more common cancers is far greater.
>
> > ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
>
> I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my
> current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's
> recommendations is
> for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L).
>
> The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day.
> Lud

I, too, am on 10k i. u./day. I have regular tests for ionized calcium
and para-thyroid performance, all within normal range and D is at
steady 80 ng. When I started I was at 25 ng and 3k iu/day raised it to
35. Apparently I metabolize D inefficiently, at least until a level
above that normally recommended. YMMV.

Califchief wrote:
>
> Q: How much sun should I get?
>
> A: Many experts believe just 15 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen is sufficient and safe for most light-skinned people, but this is controversial.

That's IF we live in sunny, warm, summertime climes near the equator.
Kansas, for example, is too far north to help that much except in
midsummer.

> Q: I'm black. Does my skin absorb enough ultraviolet rays to produce sufficient vitamin D?
>
> Specialists think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful for dark-skinned people. But you'll have to read the label to find D-3 _ most multivitamins don't contain it.

The latest D article I read in some medical newsletter said, "Oops,
never mind; D3 is no more effective than run-of-the-mill D once
absorption is taken into account."

> Q. What about food sources?
>
> A. Vitamin D is in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. But diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood.

Won't that depend on the foods we eat? "They" add a lot of D to milk,
some OJ, some other juices, etc., to the point I cut back to just one D
caspsule a day, considering its overdose threshold.

> Skin cancer is rarely fatal. Melanoma, the deadliest kind, accounts for less than 2 percent of cancer

But if one gets it and doesn't detect and treat it very early, it's one
of the deadliest. I have a dermatologist check my skin head to toe every
year or two. He says I apparently have genetic protection against skin
damage, so advises me to come back only every two years and keep using
sunscreen even though I've skated now for 64 years with no problems.


I.P.

Lud wrote:

> The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day.

Since we know that a tan is, in itself, evidence of skin damage, I'd be
careful about that.

I.P.

"Lud" <LudwickP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:875ffe90-0378-482c-a769-afa59aabbbd2@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>
> I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my
> current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's
> recommendations is
> for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L).
>
> The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day.

I'm on 2000. The only issue I had was that my Calcium increased
significantly. I'm now not taking Calcium.



--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:yJhXj.17$705.1@newsfe07.lga...
> Lud wrote:
>
>> The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day.
>
> Since we know that a tan is, in itself, evidence of skin damage, I'd be
> careful about that.
>
> I.P.

No ADT. No sun tan. No death by natural causes. But, motocycle racing and
suicide are just fine.

I think I finally figured you out. You don't take chances unless the
possible result is sudden death.

--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

Lud wrote:
>
> I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my
> current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's
> recommendations is
> for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L).

I'm confused. I thought Vit D fed PC, and that anything over about 2,000
IU was pushing the limits for people with PC.

I.P.

On May 17, 12:07*pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow>
wrote:
>
> I'm confused. I thought Vit D fed PC, and that anything over about 2,000
> IU was pushing the limits for people with PC.
>
> I.P.

Oh no, everything is showing Vit D to be extremely effective in
arresting many cancers, especially PC.

In fact, I recently received a solicitation for a donation to Snuffy
Myers organization to allow them to conduct clinical trials using Vit
D. No drug companies will sponsor it because they can't profit from
it. It a free (from the sun) vitamin.

BTW, I take no Vit D supplements and my last blood test was at 67.9 ng/
ml. The reason is that I own a tanning bed. In fact I bought a UVB
meter to make sure my bulbs produce sufficient UVB.

John

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "I.P....
>
> No ADT. No sun tan. No death by natural causes. But, motocycle racing and
> suicide are just fine.
>
> I think I finally figured you out. You don't take chances unless the
> possible result is sudden death.

Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving,
simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator
skill, and there's no room for error. I estimate my mo-cycle crash tally
at well over 5,000 crashes, with no work time lost over them. One
dresses for the occasion, and brakes and steering bars/wheels work
wonders to mitigate most crashes.

That offers rewards worth some risk, but too much sun exposure -- like
supplements and treatments and foods with more downside than upside --
seem sort of counterproductive.

I have nothing against death by natural causes; I hope to have one in
25-30 years. But if I ever have to manage my own demise to save me and
my wife some intractable, pointless, prolonged, extreme suffering, I
will take no chances; the outcome will be certain.

I.P.

JohnHace wrote:
> On May 17, 12:07 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow>
> wrote:
>> I'm confused. I thought Vit D fed PC, and that anything over about 2,000
>> IU was pushing the limits for people with PC.
>>
>> I.P.
>
> Oh no, everything is showing Vit D to be extremely effective in
> arresting many cancers, especially PC.

You're right. It was the calcium in most Vit D supplements that
exacerbates PC. Guess I got to find some pure D to avoid the extra calcium.

Thanks.

I.P.

>Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving,
>simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator
>skill, and there's no room for error.

All up to chance? No skill? No room for error? Nonsense! Obviously
you don't know much about skydiving, I.P.

Best regards,
Burney
RP in 1995 (age 52)
RT in 2000
ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07
Latest PSA - 0.23

BH wrote:
>> Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving,
>> simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator
>> skill, and there's no room for error.
>
> All up to chance? No skill? No room for error? Nonsense! Obviously
> you don't know much about skydiving, I.P.

Not much, but enough to know it eats up a whole day for a few minutes of
thrills. That's the main reason I quit skiing; too much time sitting
around between the GOOD parts. And if your chute(s) fail, you die; skill
matters little at that point. If my toys fail, I merely swim or walk
back to my van. I don't mind risking a little injury, but when a simple
equipment failure means death, I'll look elsewhere. I know several dead
or crippled skydivers and hang gliders; I've only met one dead
motorcycle racer among the 1,500+ I raced with.

I.P.

On May 16, 11:27 am, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow>
wrote:
> Lud wrote:
> > The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day.
>
> Since we know that a tan is, in itself, evidence of skin damage, I'd be
> careful about that.
>
> I.P.

IP - a tan is different from skin damage - all black people have a
permanent tan but they can also get skin damage which is a burn. Skin
tans to shut out extra sunlight when the body has enough vit D to
prevent getting an excess. Those that have low vit D must tan bit by
bit to permit the body to build up the store of vit D otherwise the
skin is open to get all the sun possible which causes a burn if
exposed to long initially(other than those that cannot get a tan).
People that get a deep tan find that as summer progresses, the tan
gets lighter as the tan blocks to much sunlight.

Studies of workers that are out in the sun all day, their 25OH-D level
is in the 100 ng/ml.

The vit D helps with calcium absorption, so the danger with high vit D
levels is excess blood calcium levels (hypercalcimia), so calcium
levels have to be checked.

Excess calcium intake depresses vitamin D levels which are needed to
keep cells healthy, consequently the correlation between high calcium
and higher cancer rates.

Check out this web site:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Dr Cannell said he would be taking 20,000 IU if he had cancer. With my
endocrinologist approval, I plan to test this dosage on myself - she
has given me the blood test requisitions to monitor it. Let you know
in 6 months.
Lud

On May 17, 12:00 pm, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> "Lud" <Ludwi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:875ffe90-0378-482c-a769-afa59aabbbd2@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my
> > current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's
> > recommendations is
> > for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L).
>
> > The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day.
>
> I'm on 2000. The only issue I had was that my Calcium increased
> significantly. I'm now not taking Calcium.
>
> --
> PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
> Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
> RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
> PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
> EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
> PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
> Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
> PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
> Casodex added daily 07/06
> PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08
> Non Illegitimi Carborundum

The basic danger of high vit D levels is excess calcium levels -
these should be monitored carefully. Strangely, no matter how much vit
D I take up to 10,000 IU, my blood calcium levels stay at the bottom
end even with 1,000 mg supplememtation - we are all different.
Lud

On May 17, 12:07 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow>
wrote:
> Lud wrote:
>
> > I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my
> > current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's
> > recommendations is
> > for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L).
>
> I'm confused. I thought Vit D fed PC, and that anything over about 2,000
> IU was pushing the limits for people with PC.
>
> I.P.

From Dr Myers' newsletter Prostate Forum v10#7 -

"Humans who live in environments where their skin is exposed to sun
for hours a day will have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels between
50-100 ng/ml. If oral vitamin D3 were the sole source of this vitamin,
it would take 4-10,000 IU a day to reach these 25-hydroxyvitamin D3
levels."

And

"There is a rather extensive literature on vitamin D3 and prostate
cancer: at last count there were more than 300 papers on the subject.
In population based studies, there is an inverse association between
sunlight exposure or serum 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D3 or 25-
hydroxyvitamin D3 and the risk of developing prostate cancer or
developing metastatic disease. In the laboratory, 1, 25-
dihydroxyvitamin
D3 suppresses prostate cancer proliferation and promotes tumor cell
death through
apoptosis. In advanced hormone refractory metastatic prostate cancer,
high doses of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 appear to improve the
effectiveness of taxotere. In a large randomized controlled trial
comparing taxotere alone with taxotere + calcitriol
there was nearly a 40% improvement in survival linked with a
significant reduction in side effects from chemotherapy."

Lud

On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:03:54 -0700, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow>
wrote:

>BH wrote:
>>> Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving,
>>> simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator
>>> skill, and there's no room for error.
>>
>> All up to chance? No skill? No room for error? Nonsense! Obviously
>> you don't know much about skydiving, I.P.
>
>Not much, but enough to know it eats up a whole day for a few minutes of
>thrills. That's the main reason I quit skiing; too much time sitting
>around between the GOOD parts. And if your chute(s) fail, you die; skill
>matters little at that point. If my toys fail, I merely swim or walk
>back to my van. I don't mind risking a little injury, but when a simple
>equipment failure means death, I'll look elsewhere. I know several dead
>or crippled skydivers and hang gliders; I've only met one dead
>motorcycle racer among the 1,500+ I raced with.
>
>I.P.

I've always heard that riding a motorcycle on the street is far more dangerous
than motorcycle racing, but, otoh, I've seen some wicked crashes when watching
Isle of Man videos...

DM

Danger Mouse wrote:
>
> I've always heard that riding a motorcycle on the street is far more dangerous
> than motorcycle racing, but, otoh, I've seen some wicked crashes when watching
> Isle of Man videos...

My racing was cross-country, as in untracked virgin desert, forest,
swamp, mountain, riverbed, etc. or existing trails thereon. I know the
concept of racing at speeds up to 100 mph on terrain that in some cases
horses couldn't negotiate, but a) trees and rocks don't move and b) we
have eyes, brakes, and handlebars. Those factors make it far less lethal
than riding a motorcycle to the office, and the exercise level exceeds
that of serious runners.

I.P.

Lud wrote:
>
> IP - a tan is different from skin damage

Google tan damage. Countless medical sites say tan = damage. The primary
sites that disagree sell or rent tanning booths.

I.P.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 18:01:59 -0700, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow>
wrote:

>Danger Mouse wrote:
>>
>> I've always heard that riding a motorcycle on the street is far more dangerous
>> than motorcycle racing, but, otoh, I've seen some wicked crashes when watching
>> Isle of Man videos...
>
>My racing was cross-country, as in untracked virgin desert, forest,
>swamp, mountain, riverbed, etc. or existing trails thereon. I know the
>concept of racing at speeds up to 100 mph on terrain that in some cases
>horses couldn't negotiate, but a) trees and rocks don't move and b) we
>have eyes, brakes, and handlebars. Those factors make it far less lethal
>than riding a motorcycle to the office, and the exercise level exceeds
>that of serious runners.
>
>I.P.

Yeah - roger on the exercise thing - I remember reading some journalist
interviewing motocross racers and asked them what they did to stay in shape.

"We ride motorcycles!"

As for the eyes/brakes/handlebars, I never considered myself that wickedly
quick to be anywhere close to safe when it came to things like sudden rocks in
the way, etc. I never rode motorcycles, and that's one of the reasons. I was
in the hospital for something else in the Air Force, and a guy, all busted up
in the next bed, had been in a motorcycle accident, and was moaning that he did
everything right, and some bitch turned in front of him...

Until that point, I hadn't gotten a motorcycle due to my parents opposition to
it (they both rode Harleys all over the place during WW2), and for lack of
disposable $$$ prior to joining the AF. Then the service was also against it,
but I could barely afford a car anyway.

_After_ the improptu interview with the broken guy in the next bed, _I_ decided
that _I_ was against it... just not enough payback for the risk involved, I
thought.

DM

Danger Mouse wrote:
> > _After_ the improptu interview with the broken guy in the next bed, _I_ decided
> that _I_ was against it... just not enough payback for the risk involved, I
> thought.

I totally agree where street riding is concerned. In what little I did
decades ago, I had to take physical action to protect myself and/or my
wife from idiots and/or criminal miscreants on several occasions.

Vitamin D ... just to get back on topic. ;-)

I.P.

"Danger Mouse" <danger_mouse@att.net> wrote in message
news:f8j134l20o1l608uoo8fnahajltqlmbktj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:03:54 -0700, "I.P. Freely"
> <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow>
> wrote:
>
>>BH wrote:
>>>> Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving,
>>>> simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator
>>>> skill, and there's no room for error.
>>>
>>> All up to chance? No skill? No room for error? Nonsense! Obviously
>>> you don't know much about skydiving, I.P.
>>
>>Not much, but enough to know it eats up a whole day for a few minutes of
>>thrills. That's the main reason I quit skiing; too much time sitting
>>around between the GOOD parts. And if your chute(s) fail, you die; skill
>>matters little at that point. If my toys fail, I merely swim or walk
>>back to my van. I don't mind risking a little injury, but when a simple
>>equipment failure means death, I'll look elsewhere. I know several dead
>>or crippled skydivers and hang gliders; I've only met one dead
>>motorcycle racer among the 1,500+ I raced with.
>>
>>I.P.
>
> I've always heard that riding a motorcycle on the street is far more
> dangerous
> than motorcycle racing, but, otoh, I've seen some wicked crashes when
> watching
> Isle of Man videos...

Having ridden a motocycle as nearly my sole transportation for a couple of
decades, I would have to agree with that. If you don't develop ESP, you're
certain to become road kill.

On May 18, 9:27*pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> Lud wrote:
>
> > IP - a tan is different from skin damage
>
> Google tan damage. Countless medical sites say tan = damage. The primary
> sites that disagree sell or rent tanning booths.
>
> I.P.

I'm not surprised "medical" sites say tan = damage. Here's the way it
sounds to me. God made the sun and God made us and He messed up and
made us incompatible with each other. But, thank goodness we have
"medical" doctors, who we all know are smarter than God. So, they're
going to save us by telling us to stay out of the sun. If we must go
into the sun, be sure to use plenty of sunscreen (which blocks UVB,
the souce of Vitamin D).

So now twenty years go by and Americans are suffering extremely low
levels of Vitamin D. Cancers rates are up. Pregnant mothers want to
protect their unborn infants, so they stay out of the sun. Meanwhile
autism is reaching epidemic proportions. Suddenly, accidental research
shows Vitamin D has some value. So, the MD's now say "Okay, get 15
minutes of sun and you'll have plenty of Vitamin D." But they neglect
to say if that is just hands and face or full body exposure. Is that
in the morning, evening or at noon? At what lattitude does this work.

It's all a lot of baloney. The "medical" community screwed up twenty
years ago and they don't want to admit it.

Just my $.02.

John

JohnHace wrote:
> the MD's now say "Okay, get 15
> minutes of sun and you'll have plenty of Vitamin D." But they neglect
> to say if that is just hands and face or full body exposure. Is that
> in the morning, evening or at noon? At what lattitude does this work.

I've read detailed answers to "just hands and face or full body
exposure. Is that in the morning, evening or at noon? At what lattitude
does this work?" many times in magazines and newsletters and newspapers.
Nobody's hiding the details.

I.P.

On May 18, 9:27 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> Lud wrote:
>
> > IP - a tan is different from skin damage
>
> Google tan damage. Countless medical sites say tan = damage. The primary
> sites that disagree sell or rent tanning booths.
>
> I.P.

Does that mean that every person that has darker skin than white has
burn damage?

According to Wiki - note last sentence.

"Sun tanning describes a darkening of the skin (especially of fair-
skinned individuals) in a natural physiological response stimulated by
exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunshine or from artificial
sources such as a tanning bed. With excess exposure to ultraviolet, a
sunburn can develop."

Lud

I did extensive research last year on Vitamin D contacting research
scientists throughout the world. To my surprise all of them answered
my emails and provided their studies. Most strongly encouraged taking
at least 2000 mg of Vitamin D per day since I was living in the
Northeast and having PCa. Few suggested more. All sugested that I
should get blood testing done regularly to monitor my vitamin D levels
especially in the winter.

Last month I met a researcher from the Boston Mass area working in the
public health arena doing a study on Vitamin D to my surprise. He
reported that there is a direct correalation between breast and
prostate cancer and lack of sunlight and Vitamin D. He also reported
that pharmacuetical companies are now working on effective delivery
strategies and derivatives of Vitamin D that will attack/prevent PCa
cells from growing and even killing them.

A few years ago very few people including physicians believed that
Vitamin D had any impact against cancer. Still some people adivse only
taking 30-40 mg per day or getting your vitamin D from milk. Lack of
sunlight and vitamin D also supresses the immune system and has been
associated with MS.

There is much to read and learn about vitamin D and sunlight if you
have PCa.

15 minutes of exposure to natural summer sunlight can store
15,000-20,000 IUs of vitamin D in the body. You simply cannot get
this level of IUs from diet or supplementation.

The human body is vastly more intelligent than we think it is. It
stores vitamin D captured from natural summer sunlight and uses it
throughout the winter months when sun exposure is less (or non-
existent, depending on where you live). I suspect people who suffer
from S.A.D. in northern and southern areas (globally speaking) are
also people who get little outdoor exposure during the summer. I had
a bout of S.A.D. last fall (I live in Seattle) for the first time.
Thinking back, I realized that I had spent very little time outside
last summer.


On May 16, 12:00 am, califch...@fidotel.com (Califchief) wrote:
> Tips on getting vitamin D forcancerprevention
> Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT
>
> Evidence is growing that vitamin D, which the skin makes from sunshine, is linked to lower risk of breastcancerand other cancers.
>
> But that doesn't mean it's good to get a golden tan -- and certainly not a sunburn.
>
> Vitamin D also is in certain foods and supplements, though the effectiveness varies. Here's the lowdown:
>
> Q: How much sun should I get?
>
> A: Many experts believe just 15 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen is sufficient and safe for most light-skinned people, but this is controversial.
>
> Q: I'm black. Does my skin absorb enough ultraviolet rays to produce sufficient vitamin D?
>
> Specialists think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful for dark-skinned people. But you'll have to read the label to find D-3 _ most multivitamins don't contain it.
>
> Q: How much do I need?
>
> A: Scientists think adults may need 1,000 international units (IUs) a day, possibly 1,500 forcancerprevention. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old. Any more can cause the body to retain dangerous amounts of calcium.
>
> Q. What about food sources?
>
> A. Vitamin D is in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. But diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood.
>
> Q: For years, we've been told to use sunscreen. Shouldn't we be worried about skincancer?
>
> A: Sunscreen is advised for longer periods outdoors, to prevent skincancer. Skincanceris rarely fatal. Melanoma, the deadliest kind, accounts for less than 2 percent ofcancerdeaths. The risks posed by other, more common cancers is far greater.
>
> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

<danvlarsen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b04ca670-029e-4231-9e3c-3f0721dc4400@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> 15 minutes of exposure to natural summer sunlight can store
> 15,000-20,000 IUs of vitamin D in the body. You simply cannot get
> this level of IUs from diet or supplementation.
>
> The human body is vastly more intelligent than we think it is. It
> stores vitamin D captured from natural summer sunlight and uses it
> throughout the winter months when sun exposure is less (or non-
> existent, depending on where you live). I suspect people who suffer
> from S.A.D. in northern and southern areas (globally speaking) are
> also people who get little outdoor exposure during the summer. I had
> a bout of S.A.D. last fall (I live in Seattle) for the first time.
> Thinking back, I realized that I had spent very little time outside
> last summer.

I believe there was a study done several years ago that showed that people
who lived in southern climes and/or had outdoor jobs, such as farmers, had
lower prostate cancer rates than the population at large. I know there are
lots of other variables here, but the study suggested that the sunlight
(consequently the Vitamin D) was a responsible factor.

Scientific American had a good discussion of this back in January:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...nshine-vitamin

--
Dedman

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **