Dr. Mercola January 20 2009 28,401 views
I have this nagging feeling that we are still in the dark. Vitamin D was, I believe, characterized in 1928; a Nobel Prize was awarded. But from then until now we have known virtually only one good thing about it; below a particular serum level leads to bone disease. Science has a major problem in frequently jumping to conclusions, why? I don't know but as a scientist I see it all the time. In this case it was assumed for nearly a century, on the basis of not having looked that vitamin D was good for nothing else. Its a wonder scientists haven't become extinct from crossing roads, assuming the one car to go by is the only one, then to step out and to be run over by a truck.
Is this not happening again? now we've found the association between the levels of D and cancer and are now assuming this is all there is. The anecdotal clues about the eyes should tell us there is more. Can anyone point to data showing that the only necessary thing the sun does when it shines on the body is produce vitamin D at a level necessary to inhibit cancer? If not why are we assuming that? Are there other diseases that are inhibited by adequate levels of other things induced by sun exposure yet to be discovered? Until I see a more competent attitude to scientific study I'm going to continue to get lots of sun, without burning of course. After a number of years of following basic health science research and discovery I believe the score in "First to Discover" now stands at Old Wives 47 : Science 19. Dr. Mercola and others on the internet deserve the credit for the breakout.
Good points. That is why I recommend the sun or a safe tanning bed and NOT oral vitamin D. If one can't afford the UVB exposure then oral vitamin D is clearly better than not supplementing.
The reason vitamin D knowledge has exploded in the last ten years, is the ability to inexpensively and accurately test it. This test only became available in the late 90s and it takes a number of years to write grants and get funding to do the necessary research to document the actions of vitamin D.
I suspect we will also see an explosion of information about vitamin A once we get a similar test as currently there is no inexpensive commercial assay for vitamin A.
As a natural health author and researcher, and a follower of Doctor Mercola and the Vitamin D Council, I continue to be more impressed by all the information about the vital roles of sunshine and Vitamin D3, as well as the health benefits of indirect sunlight.
To quote from my own natural anti-cancer protocol (www.tbyil.com/anticancer.htm):
"From the very first days that man walked upon the earth, sunshine has been a key to health and survival. The importance of the synergistic relationship between health and regular sunshine cannot be over-emphasized for both physical healing and mental health (which is itself a key to physical healing for cancer and any other illness). Contrary to popular beliefs about the harmful effects of over exposure to the sun, abundant sunlight has extremely high success rates for:
Safely stopping tumor growth
Preventing cancer by stimulating the body's vitamin D production.
Preventing influenza
. . . sunshine is essential to the production of vitamin D, and, strange as it may sound, has been found to be essential in warding off melanoma as well as other cancers. Be sure to get full body sun exposure avoiding the heat of the day and not allowing oneself to become more than mildly "pink" or sunburned by gradually increasing exposure time from a few minutes to perhaps a full hour and more each day.
Fair skin and the number of moles are the major risk factor for melanoma (skin cancer), not sunlight overexposure.
In 1959. Jane C Wright, directing cancer research at Bellevue Memorial Medical Center in New York City, instructed fifteen cancer patients to stay outdoors as much as possible that summer in natural sunlight without wearing their glasses, and particularly without sunglasses. By that Autumn, the tumors in 14 of 15 had not grown, and some patients had gotten better. It was discovered that the one patient that didn’t have good results . . . had continued to wear her prescription glasses."
What about those of us who have fair skin, family history of melanoma, blistering sunburns as kids and atypical moles? Dr. Mercola stated in a previous article that a tan is one's skin's protection but I don't tan, just burn! I really don't know what advice to follow at this point......advice welcomed.
The amount of sun each person needs is drastically different, depending mostly on your ancestry. You probably don't need much more than 15 minutes a day... and remember consistency is important. Start out with just a few minutes a day and slowly work up to 20 or so(try 1 or two minutes added per day). You can also boost your tolerance by optimizing your nutrient intake. I find when I'm juicing regularly (fresh vegetable) It takes longer out in the sun for me to burn.
I develop very blotchy facial skin after exposure to sunlight.
However, after checking my vitamin and mineral intakes on my diet software I have begun to take 500mcg of folic acid daily - and I am actually tanning a little for the second time in my life!
Appropriate sunlight is still necessary and will still DECREASE your risk of cancer as it will increase your vitamin D level. This is WELL documented. However, fair skinned people like you just need far less sunlight. Perhaps only a few minutes of day in the summer. Anymore will increase your risk of cancer.
Appropriate means that your skin has turned the LIGHTEST pink possible on significant areas of your skin.. At that point your body will be producing 20,000 units of vitamin D. Any further exposure that day will only cause skin damage. Just be careful not to shower for the next 1-2 hours as the D needs to be absorbed into your bloodstream. If you wash it off you will not get the vitamin D.
Pigwidgeon:
I have a friend who becomes very ill if she get too much sun, burns easily, and once avoided the sun all together. A friend read a book about health (I cannot recall the book's title) but the book suggested only exposing parts, of the body, a hand, arm, or leg, and only for limited time, and several times a day. It does appear this worked for her.
pigwidge
start slow-2 min a day for a few days. Then increase to 3...4...5 you get the idea. if you start to "feel the burn" back it off. work up to 20 min a day. i would suggest that you don't increase with every exposure but give it a few days at each time segment to decrease your chances of burning. Most of all, YOU know your body. LISTEN to it. If you know you are burning..cover up!
happy sunning!
For any of us that are concerned about sunburns should do as I did and take essential calcium from www.newvision.com. It is ionic and 98% absorbable, same for the essential minerals. This calcium caused my "disease" of sunburning to be cured. I used to get burnt in just 10 minutes and it would last for 3 weeks and after 5 days become "prickly heat" a terribly painful condition. But this wonderful calcium fixed that problem so I can spend even 4 hours in the tropical sun in a swimming pool and not get burned. Oh yes, if I stay out too long, I will get very red and this slight burn lasts only 3 days and doesn't bother me at all. Instead I just put Lavender Oil over it and it heals rapidly. I also use lavender oil for getting a good nights sleep.
As ChrisH said, when you eat enough vegetables you will not likely burn as quickly. This is because the antioxidants in certain foods (like vegetables) protect your skin from free radicals formed from the sun. So if you have very fair skin, start off slow when going out in the sun and make sure to load up on antioxidants from vegetables (juicing them would also be nice).
stoic, i think the free pill has a circumference of 1.3 million miles and most likely has a singularity at its core.
to curious7 this website might help you
nadir.nilu.no/.../VitD_quartMED.html
jmham:
Thank you very kindly. My problem is trying to convince friends and family about the need for sunshine, and the benefits thereof.