 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:41 pm  |
| Yes, I've attended a talk recently by an expert on osteoporosis about not getting enough vitamin D. But you only need 15 mins of "unprotected" sun exposure a day (assuming good sunlight conditions) to get a good hefty dose of vitamin D. I think it is unlikely that we would get major skin problems with that short period of exposure. And the vitamin D is good for our bones as well as having anti-cancer effects. So I think the benefits outweigh the risks for this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:47 pm |
I think the surprising finding was that cancer council (if you see the vogue thread) are claiming that there is no need to wear sunscreen during winter because the uv levels are below 3. Didn't the Cancer Council always espoused the view that you need to wear sunscreen all year round come rain, snow or shine?
And also the 15 minutes a day depends on your skin colour. If you're fair you can do with a few minutes of unprotected sun but if you're dark then you need to prolong the exposure.
From memorym I think I read that we need to expose 15% of our body to the sun for our bodies to produce and metabolize vitamin D. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:58 pm |
Here's what the Cancer Council recommends-during winter for those living in South Australia (winter in Australia is very mild and more like a nice autumn day for those in North Asia, N America and Europe) we need at least 2-3 hours sun exposure for vitmin D.
Article:
Sun exposure and Vitamin D
We all need vitamin D to develop strong healthy bones. The best form of vitamin D for your body is the UV radiation in sunlight.
Sensible sun protection does not put people at risk of vitamin D deficiency but there are times when it’s actually important to be in the sun without protection.
How much sun is enough for vitamin D production?
Fair skinned people can get enough vitamin D in summer from a few minutes of sunlight on their face, arms and hands before 10am or after 3pm on most days of the week.
In winter in South Australia, when UV radiation levels are below 3, people need about two to three hours of sunlight to their face, arms and hands over a week.
Is it true that some people don’t make enough vitamin D?
Although most people get enough sunlight to make adequate Vitamin D during their day-to-day outdoor activities there are some groups who may not make enough.
This includes
naturally dark skinned people
those who cover their skin for religious or cultural reasons
the elderly
babies of vitamin D deficient mothers
people who are housebound or in institutional care.
See your doctor if you’re worried about your vitamin D level.
Link: http://www.cancersa.org.au/aspx/Sun_exposure_and_Vitamin_D.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:49 pm |
A significant deficiency of Vit D turned out to be causing some of my extreme fatigue, and I was placed on 10,000iu's daily for 3 months, and then went on 5,000iu's daily for maintenance.
I spent some time researching the topic, and this one of my favorite articles on Vit D:
| Quote: |
What the research on vitamin D tells us is that unless you are a fisherman, farmer, or otherwise outdoors and exposed regularly to sunlight, living in your ancestral latitude (more on this later), you are unlikely to obtain adequate amounts of vitamin D from the sun. Historically the balance of one's daily need was provided by food. Primitive peoples instinctively chose vitamin-D-rich foods including the intestines, organ meats, skin and fat from certain land animals, as well as shellfish, oily fish and insects. Many of these foods are unacceptable to the modern palate.
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html
|
It goes into quite a bit of detail, but is fairly well organized by outline, so you can skip to what interests you.
They also have an update on the appropriate test and scores, since Vit D at too high of a level can be toxic (which is why I dropped to 5k after I tested too high on 10k). |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:12 pm |
Thanks for reminding us that there is a blood test for this.
If possible, the best (most accurate) way to monitor if you're getting enough vit. D is to go for the blood test. The articles give general guidelines only. Since there is so much variation in skin colour and UV exposure between individuals, the blood test would give you the best indication. Check with your doctor about how to do the blood test and what the cost would be.
There are side effects from overdosage of vitamin D, so it would be prudent to ascertain how you stand in vitamin D status currently so that you can have an idea of whether you need to have really high doses or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:05 am |
I personally would still advise caution with the sun. In June 2000 I had a mole turn to melanoma and had to have a major skin graft surgery on my right ankle (not fun, believe me!). Now again, just two weeks ago we found a mole on my right shoulder that had just formed melanoma. Luckily, they were both caught in time, and the shoulder only required 5 internal and 10 external stitches to "cure" it.
I think the chances of skin cancer has more to do with your "history" of sun-abuse rather than small exposures day to day. When I was growing up our family lived in Delaware (cold in winter, not much sun) and would vacation in St. Petersburg, Florida every April of every year. In the 60s we didn't wear any sunscreen and played on the beach for 8 hours at a time. I can still recall the painful sunburns we got, and rubbing noxema and bacteen on our red and peeling skin. Later, when I was a competitive bodybuilder in the 90s, I used the Arizona sun to tan to as dark as my skin could get during the day, and then hit the tanning beds at night after my workouts! Geez, if that wasn't a recipe for skin cancer, I don't know what is!
Bottom line is this from my perspective....my skin doctor/oncologist actually recommends a "little" bit of sun exposure from day to day. He doesn't recommend laying out and baking by any means. And he too feels that it is a matter of your sun-history that is the probably cause of skin cancers. It is true that you need some sun exposure to produce vitamin D, and I still get out in the sun when I can. Just don't over do it.
And whatever you do, perform body checks on a regular basis. Look for moles or skin spots that are irregular in shape, have different colors such as black, blue, red or even white, and if they are bleeding or growing in size, then by all means GO and have these marks checked by a skin care doctor or specialist. By the way, any mole or mark with a hair or hairs growing from it will not be skin cancer (interesting info that I learned from the doc). Skin cancer can be removed IF found early enough. I'm living proof of that.
John |
_________________
President and Chief Formulator, Never Over The Hill Cosmetics, Patend holder, Award winning cosmetic chemist, neveroverthehill.com, Age 51 and staying young forever! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:38 am |
| I'd rather err on the side of too little sun and take a vit D supplement (and als get it from food). Right now I take about 270 IU, but now I'm alarmed enough that next time I order vitamins I'm going to add a cod liver oil supplement for a vit D boost. So that'll bump the vit D to about 540 IU. (400 IU is what's recommended as "100% vit D", but it looks like that's a low estimate) |
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:30 pm |
| m1rox wrote: |
Thanks for reminding us that there is a blood test for this.
If possible, the best (most accurate) way to monitor if you're getting enough vit. D is to go for the blood test. The articles give general guidelines only. Since there is so much variation in skin colour and UV exposure between individuals, the blood test would give you the best indication. Check with your doctor about how to do the blood test and what the cost would be.
There are side effects from overdosage of vitamin D, so it would be prudent to ascertain how you stand in vitamin D status currently so that you can have an idea of whether you need to have really high doses or not. |
Here is a little more info on that...
| Quote: |
Elevated levels of serum vitamin D can cause significant bone loss and calcification of soft tissues.
If you are using supplements of vitamin D (natural or synthetic) or are light skinned and have had significant sun exposure in tropical or subtropical areas and haven't done so before, it is very important to test your blood levels of D.
Optimal values of 25(OH)D are 40-50 ng/ml
Acceptable values of 25(OH)D are 35-55 ng/ml
Levels above 55 ng/ml will be toxic for some individuals.
There is no good reason to maintain levels of D in this higher range and strong evidence showing potential harm.
You need to TEST. The correct test to order is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Make sure this is the test you get. Labs often give the test for 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, the active hormone. This test is the wrong test as it offers no meaningful data regarding D status.
Lab One offers the least expensive testing I have found nationwide and is available in most states. Your physician can reach them at 1-800-646-7788. The test is 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The Lab One test number, just to be sure you get the right test, is #3247. Rarely does insurance cover the cost for this test, which is about $60 including lab fees. Other labs I have queried charge $100-180 for the same test.
The important thing to remember if you are doing vitamin D therapy, or spending lots of time in the sun, is to TEST!
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html#updatefall02 |
|
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:52 pm |
Interesting... Esp. to hear that Vitamin D deficiency is linked to fatigue... (I may have to get checked on that...) Do they do a specific blood test for that - or is it part of a regular blood panel? Anyone a nurse or doctor here?  |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:21 pm |
| The blood test for vitamin D levels is not part of the usual panel. You have to ask for it specially. And I believe the RDA for vitamin D has been revised upwards and may now be 800 IU. Or is in the process of being revised. Even in my country (equatorial with sun all year round), a lot of adults have been found to have less than optimal blood levels of vitamin D. So those of you who live in temperate climates with long dark winters please take note that you have to take oral supplements during winter. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:58 pm |
Just a short comment on vitamin D overdose. Excessive sun exposure will most likely not cause vitamin D toxicity. Actually, I have seen that some doctors recommend the sun as a source of vit D over supplements because you can obtain very high vit D levels in your body without risking toxicity.
| Quote: |
Sun exposure is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity. Other compounds produced in the skin protect the body from synthesising too much vitamin D during periods of prolonged sun exposure. Vitamin D toxicity is likely to occur from vitamin D supplements.
http://www.dermnet.org.nz/systemic/vitamin-d.html |
|
_________________
Female, 40, Norway. Normal/dry skin, starting to see signs of aging. Staples: Glycolic acid cleanser, SkinCeuticals Phloretin CF, Revaleskin, NIA24. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:51 pm |
When I'm out and about I haven't actually caught site of a new born baby for ages!! I live in Queensland, Australia and it seems the latest fad for young mothers with babies in prams is to cover them with a sheet or rug that is draped from the hood to the base of the pram. The baby is then effectively encased in a "tent" which presumably protects the child from the sun. When I had my children, we were told to expose their naked bodies to the sun for a limited time whenever possible - oh how times change.
So, I have been wondering whether, in the future, we are going to have allot of Vitamin D deficient children - I'm not surprised by these surveys at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:15 pm |
| taobunny wrote: |
| Interesting... Esp. to hear that Vitamin D deficiency is linked to fatigue... (I may have to get checked on that...) Do they do a specific blood test for that - or is it part of a regular blood panel? Anyone a nurse or doctor here? |
I listed the test below...my original score was 2 years ago was 11 (thus the fatigue), and my doctor likes to keep me at 45-55.
| Quote: |
Optimal values of 25(OH)D are 40-50 ng/ml
Acceptable values of 25(OH)D are 35-55 ng/ml
Levels above 55 ng/ml will be toxic for some individuals.
The correct test to order is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D. |
|
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:07 am |
| I started taking a vitamin D supplement about a month ago as I'm diligent about using as strong a sunscreen as I can find, everyday. I'm taking 1000IU. I suppose it would be a good idea if I actually get tested soon to see how high in D I am now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:57 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
When I'm out and about I haven't actually caught site of a new born baby for ages!! I live in Queensland, Australia and it seems the latest fad for young mothers with babies in prams is to cover them with a sheet or rug that is draped from the hood to the base of the pram. The baby is then effectively encased in a "tent" which presumably protects the child from the sun. When I had my children, we were told to expose their naked bodies to the sun for a limited time whenever possible - oh how times change.
So, I have been wondering whether, in the future, we are going to have allot of Vitamin D deficient children - I'm not surprised by these surveys at all. |
I heard that too - that small children need to be exposed to the sun. The vit.D deficiency is far more dangerous with children - they develop rachitis without enough vit.D, and the best and the safest way to get vit.D - is the sun. |
_________________
31, combo - oily, breakout-prone, fair complexion, sensitive and prone to rosacea |
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:52 am |
| Indeed yes. The sun is the most efficient way to get a whopping big dose of vitamin D without having to pop pills. And if you get it by sun exposure, your body can self-regulate the process so that you make the right amount for your body's needs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:04 pm |
Oh, no! Please don't tell me my boyfriend is right.
He told me not to wear ss every time I step out of the house because I need the vitamin D.
Well, I'm happy that this information will allow me to step outside in mid-winter not looking like so sea-foam green as I am wont to appear with a cast of white sheen!
--avalange |
_________________
http://newnaturalbeauty.tumblr.com/ 37, light-toned olive skin, broken caps, normal skin. My staples: Osea cleansing milk, Algae Oil, Advanced Protection Cream, Eyes & Lips, Tata Harper, Julie Hewett makeup, Amazing Cosmetics Powder, & By Terry Light Expert, Burnout, and daily inversion therapy and green smoothies! |
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:46 pm |
| avalange wrote: |
Oh, no! Please don't tell me my boyfriend is right.
He told me not to wear ss every time I step out of the house because I need the vitamin D.
Well, I'm happy that this information will allow me to step outside in mid-winter not looking like so sea-foam green as I am wont to appear with a cast of white sheen!
--avalange |
I remember this issue was discussed not so long ago, and the consensus was to protect the face, hands, neck & chest with ss and to expose to the sun everything else to get the needed vit.D. But this was concerning summer.
I donnow however what to do when it`s winter - when I definitely cannot expose anything else except the face, and I want to protect the face as I`m using a retinol product... i`m confused here  |
_________________
31, combo - oily, breakout-prone, fair complexion, sensitive and prone to rosacea |
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:05 pm |
Hi Aiva,
I use a retinoid, too, but I thought the gist of the study was that incidental or less than 15 minutes per day would not be harmful...
I wish some others would weigh in here, too!
I, too, thought of the "other parts of the body" exposure solution. Now I'm thinking that my five minutes in wintry sun not during the peak hours isn't warranting a full face of sunscreen, retinoid use or no retinoid use...
--avalange
| Aiva wrote: |
| avalange wrote: |
Oh, no! Please don't tell me my boyfriend is right.
He told me not to wear ss every time I step out of the house because I need the vitamin D.
Well, I'm happy that this information will allow me to step outside in mid-winter not looking like so sea-foam green as I am wont to appear with a cast of white sheen!
--avalange |
I remember this issue was discussed not so long ago, and the consensus was to protect the face, hands, neck & chest with ss and to expose to the sun everything else to get the needed vit.D. But this was concerning summer.
I donnow however what to do when it`s winter - when I definitely cannot expose anything else except the face, and I want to protect the face as I`m using a retinol product... i`m confused here |
|
_________________
http://newnaturalbeauty.tumblr.com/ 37, light-toned olive skin, broken caps, normal skin. My staples: Osea cleansing milk, Algae Oil, Advanced Protection Cream, Eyes & Lips, Tata Harper, Julie Hewett makeup, Amazing Cosmetics Powder, & By Terry Light Expert, Burnout, and daily inversion therapy and green smoothies! |
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:36 pm |
Well some might think I'm quite mad  but I won't be exposing any part of my body to the sun. I'd rather pop an extra pill. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:49 pm |
| Mishey wrote: |
| Well some might think I'm quite mad but I won't be exposing any part of my body to the sun. I'd rather pop an extra pill. But that's just me. |
Mishey, there may be a problem with vit.D pills - in absorbency by the body and in toxicity if overdosed. You are totally safe here with the sun. |
_________________
31, combo - oily, breakout-prone, fair complexion, sensitive and prone to rosacea |
|
|
|
|
Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:06 pm |
| avalange wrote: |
Hi Aiva,
I use a retinoid, too, but I thought the gist of the study was that incidental or less than 15 minutes per day would not be harmful...
I wish some others would weigh in here, too!
I, too, thought of the "other parts of the body" exposure solution. Now I'm thinking that my five minutes in wintry sun not during the peak hours isn't warranting a full face of sunscreen, retinoid use or no retinoid use...
--avalange
| Aiva wrote: |
| avalange wrote: |
Oh, no! Please don't tell me my boyfriend is right.
He told me not to wear ss every time I step out of the house because I need the vitamin D.
Well, I'm happy that this information will allow me to step outside in mid-winter not looking like so sea-foam green as I am wont to appear with a cast of white sheen!
--avalange |
I remember this issue was discussed not so long ago, and the consensus was to protect the face, hands, neck & chest with ss and to expose to the sun everything else to get the needed vit.D. But this was concerning summer.
I donnow however what to do when it`s winter - when I definitely cannot expose anything else except the face, and I want to protect the face as I`m using a retinol product... i`m confused here |
|
Hi Avalange,
I might be the same opinion here but my use of retinol...
the fact is that you get harmful UVA rays even when there is no sunshine, when it is rainy, gloomy, snowy.
the fact is that UVA rays penetrate usual windows, if the windows are not covered in special protection.
So even being outside 5 min a day, you get these UVA rays being inside.
But I`m certainly not paranoid enough to stay away from any sun light, nor am I advocating living in a basement 
on the contrary - I love sun! it gives me energy and I`m moody and depressed without it 
BUT...
I`m concerned that exposing the face even to the winter sun while using retinol, I`ll bring to naught all my anti-aging efforts, that it will be a losing battle to correct sun-damage with retinol in the p.m. and to make more of it in the a.m.
I, too, wish to hear other opinions though! |
_________________
31, combo - oily, breakout-prone, fair complexion, sensitive and prone to rosacea |
|
|
|
|
Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:25 am |
| I think in winter you would still have to apply sunscreen if you're applying retinol on your face. And even if you didn't apply sunscreen, you would not get enough vitamin D from exposure of your face only. So you would have to supplement with tablets. A dose of up to 1000 IU would be safe. I heard this from more than one doctor. You also have to take calcium supplements unless your diet is chockful of calcium. If you're taking calcium carbonate, you have to take it with meals to prevent kidney stones. With calcium citrate, it's not so crucial to take it with meals. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:50 am |
I too have heard that 1000IU is a good dose to take.
The thing that worries me is that I used to spend alot of time in the sun and have sun damage, particularly on my arms and chest. I use retin a on my face, neck, chest, hands and entire arms and just won't go out in the sun without my PPD 38 sunscreen. With all that retin a I may end up with more sun damage rather than less if I go out without it. A bit of a dilemma. |
|
|
|
|
| Sat Apr 27, 2024 8:17 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
