The New York Times: Vitamin D, the Sunshine Supplement, Has Shadowy Money Behind It

The science of vit D seems sound despite anything. We slather ourselves with sun tan lotion and do not get nearly as much sunshine as we need. Bodies can't function without vitamins, you get scurvy and blindness from others. Vit D deficiency may have looked less common because in the discovery days most people got enough easily.

The profits of the supplement industry may be another thing, but those of us housebound probably need it.
 
I take it too.

Being the type who gets sunburn looking out the window, let alone sitting on a chair outside my back door for a few minutes, in the few years since I started taking it, I've not gotten burnt at all. I'm just gonna keep taking it.

Seriously, I've been burnt from being outside for 10 minutes in a typical British April! Didn't slap on a high factor because I was only in the back garden for a few minutes and it was early April, for goodness sake.

Normally, I slap on factor 50, but I often seem to miss a bit....
 
So do I, but typical ones of us in the Western world don't get enough in the winter (who go outside and are not covered with suntan lotion all the time!). Although they say we have enough to cope until the spring, I think we may lose vitamins and minerals faster than other people.
 
I pulled out some of my records when I used to get my D levels tested regularly and found 2 reports during the "non sunshine months", my level November 29, 2005 was at 83 and on March 3, 2006 it dropped to 47. I wasn't taking vitamin D supplements during that time.
 
I got low levels on vit D even when I had taken supplements, so got a prescription recently. Was low on iron and B-12 as well. Usually I don't notice any difference whether I have anaemia or the levels are normal, but this time I feel a bit better after starting supplements and hope to fill up the reservoar so I won't linger on the lower end of normal range.
 
Oral vit D is not well absorbed in anyone that's why they recommend sunshine, but then many of us don't have a choice. My local MS group sells it at cost as it is implicated in MS but some people had to stop taking it because they were getting bone problems and disturbed calcium balance in the blood. Though they were people who got a lot of sunshine as well.

My doctor would not test me for vitD just calcium status (which, of course, sigh, was normal)
 
Lots of good information on this site.

When you synthesize vitamin D from sun exposure, it skips the fat absorption issue altogether. This could be important for people with intestinal issues that affect fat absorption. Vitamin D can especially be a problem in elderly people, who are both more likely to have intestinal absorption issues and reduced vitamin D synthesis from sun exposure. So optimizing fat intake can provide an important edge in these people. If your older family members like food and nutrition, talk to them about this interesting tidbit!
 
Unlike the National Academy, which concluded that patients have sufficient vitamin D when their blood levels are at or above 20 nanograms per milliliter, the Endocrine Society said vitamin D levels need to be much higher — at least 30 nanograms per milliliter.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of people using metric measurements :

20 ng/ml is equivalent to 50 nmol/L

30 ng/mL is equivalent to 75 nmol/L

To do the calculation for you - in either direction - you can use this converter :

https://grassrootshealth.net/?post_projects=serum-level-converter

If you want to follow that website's recommendations on how much vitamin D3 to take to raise your level (just make sure you pay attention to the units used) :

https://grassrootshealth.net/project/dcalculator/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom