It is all true!

[Mrs pbradley936]

I know that it is usually Ted that keeps us up to date with vitamin D but he is very far from a lone voice these days. Take a look:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080308.wxvitamin08/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080308.wxvitamin08/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home)

[Badger_Lady]

I've been loving the sunshine this week - had the top down in the convertible, soaking up the rays almost every day! I don't know about it being some sort of "miracle cure" but it's certainly something I need and don't get sufficiently from my diet...

[melancholly]

despite the way that ted interprets my posts, i think that vitamin D may well do some good. however, when i was a teenager the magic drug to get rid of acne was high dose vitamin E - worked a treat, but needed a consultant to prescribe it. now there is evidence that high dose vitamin E can be a risk factor for lung cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7271189.stm) and it's also dangerous in high quantities for the elderly - this is not what people used to think even 10 years ago. sunlight and regular supplements of vitamin D can't be a bad thing - it's the long term use of extremely high dosages that simply hasn't been tested for other side effects and risks. it may well be that risks are low and are more than outweighed by the benefits, but for now, i think moderation is the best approach rather than going for huge quantities before we know long term effects.

(i fully expect a reply from ted with links to a million studies, but the long term work hasn't been done yet - and it should be looked at - someone should be at least starting to do it to find out! i'm not doubting that vitamin D can do good, but the devil is always in the details!)

[Ted_Hutchinson]

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT has done several good vitamin d articles in the Globe and Mail Pity our newspapers don't have someone interested in the most recent science.
I'm glad a lot of people have read it.
(and 385 have recommended it. I was number 39)

But do take account of the facts that this is written from the Canadian perspective and we in the UK live further north than most Canadians, being a continent rather than a cloud covered island they get 30% more hours sunlight annually and their milk/cereals are vitamin d fortified. So they have a higher background intake than we do. We are starting from a lower vitamin d status and do not have the extra inputs that Canadians have so we need MORE each day than they do.

I've just read a few of the latest comments, very interesting to see how many people have reported using Vitamin D has controlled their SAD.
Bio-Tech D3-5 (http://www.bio-tech-pharm.com/products/d35.html) is the cheapest source I know of. If you want to average a lower amount then all you have to do is to take on one day each week sufficient capsules to cover 7 days worth.
So 5 x 5000=25000/week = 3500iu/day approx cost 3p daily
3 x 5000=15000/week = 2000iu/daily approx 1.5p/d
I buy 2 packs of 250 at a time. This is under the import tax threshold and so you don't pay extra at this end. It works out at 4.2p daily for 1 a day
Because Vit d is fat soluble take it with food it will then be absorbed and hang around for about 3 weeks. This explains why it make no odds (except to the babies of breast feeding mothers who DO NEED TO TAKE VITAMIN D DAILY otherwise vitamin d levels in breast milk flucuate) whether you take it once a week or once a day.

For those who don't believe me and prefer to buy a lower strength and use it daily IHERB Carlson, Vitamin D, 2000 IU, 360 Soft Gels (http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?c=1&pid=7255860309350762561) $11.28 would be my next choice though they do offer a good range. If you haven't used IHERB before this referral code WAB666 will give you a $5 discount off your first order. I will get 2% off the discounted order value off my next order but DON'T spend too much, remember the IMPORT duty/vat if your order contents are worth more than £18. $35

Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076342)
Is the latest word on what actually works to correct Vitamin d deficiency. Remember these guys are working/testing people in the USA/CANADA and the common sense logical thinking about the background levels of Vit d they get applies.

PS: It only takes a few minutes to register at GlobeandMail to be able to comment on the article. It would be helpful if as many UK readers as possible comment to show that people here are concerned about the issue.

[Mrs pbradley936]

Well I just love sunshine/nice weather if it is good for you too so much the better.
Last week I watched this: http://www.oprah.com/health/oz/oz_20070917_350_102.jhtml (http://www.oprah.com/health/oz/oz_20070917_350_102.jhtml)

And was amazed to learn that several healthy beliefs are myths. Examples you do not have to drink lots of water every day. You need a certain amount but more is not beneficial. Detoxing is a complete waste of time. Something which is true is that having plenty of calcium helps you lose weight.

[Treen]

This article was in the latest e-mail from Dr Mercola, would be interested in what anyone thinks about it.

http://products.mercola.com/tanning-bed/

Many thanks

Treen

[Badger_Lady]

Hmm... looks dubious, but then I'm frequently dubious of "health boosting" products...

Can exclusively UVB rays actually produce natural levels of Vitamin D without causing harm? Ted, get on here!

[Ted_Hutchinson]

Can exclusively UVB rays actually produce natural levels of Vitamin D without causing harm? Ted, get on here!Personally I wouldn't bother with a sunlamp or visits to a tanning studio but I'm in the fortunate position of being able to nip out to the summerhouse down the garden to get some full body midday sunshine for free between April and the end of September.

I did toy with the idea of getting a UVB lamp but I think the 5000iu/daily were sufficient to see me through the winter without getting SAD.

A UVB lamp will raise your vitamin d status. There is ample research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11729127) to show (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1645) it does. You can avoid harm by preparing your skin by improving your natural sun protection capacity. I've previously mentioned various research bases strategies.
2 (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=4202814&postcount=2) and #131 (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=5275520&postcount=131) but be aware there are some 10trillion cells in your body and almost each one has a vitamin d/omega3 requirement so starting on a selection of these strategies may take up to 3 months or so to have built up a good natural protection.

Holick in his book I have summarised his main points about using UVB lights.
"The U Advantage" says about indoor tanning says
Keep in mind tanning lamps emit UV radiation equivalent to mid latitudes 35-50 lat.
Restrict your exposure to ONE -THIRD to TWO THIRDS the maximum exposure time for your skin type.
there are 5-6 skin types and the maximum exposure times go as follows.

8 mins
10 mins
20 mins
25 mins
35 mins
35 minsbut of course you still have to use your common sense and NEVER ever get burned. You have to understand that before the skin burns all the vitamin d near the surface of the skin will have been destroyed by being turned into products the body doesn't utilise (http://www.uvguide.co.uk/vitdpathway.htm)and consequently will not be there to defend against skin cancer cells. So little but regular use is the secret.
Always were goggles.check your medications don't make you photosensitive.
People with lupus/cold sores may need to acclimatise their skin over a long period with even shorter sessions than above (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16488300).
Remember about a quarter of the time it takes for your skin to go red is all you need to make 4000iu your bodies daily usage.


Sunlight, tanning booths, and vitamin D (http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pdf/505-sunlight,%20tanning%20booths,%20vitamin%20D.PDF)