Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting Article from Newsweek

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting Article from Newsweek

    I saw this on Zeroing in on Health website: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/w...is-wrong.html#

    I am still concerned about the dosages of Vitamin D being recommended in here. I truly hope we don't find out in a few years that it's not necessary or even detrimental to health. The same thing happened with Vitamin E.

  • #2
    that's why i don't dose with vit D. unless there is a clear deficiency, i don't see the need. and, i would prefer to use sun (or tanning beds).

    DH and i are talking about 10 minutes of tanning in low flow, balanced uva/uvb bulbs once or twice a week just to maintain healthy levels. Dh also takes cod liver oil (for any number of reasons) which is high in D (and A, which is his primary reason). so, yeah.

    the article is great. everyone holds up science as this paragon of knowledge, when in reality, the method is great, but the researcher (the observer) isn't always. the conclusions may not be accurate, the study may have been flawed, etc etc.

    that's why i'm always talking about what we don't know. yes, the information is interesting and can be very helpful. but it's not necessarily why one should do this or that.

    Comment


    • #3
      That IOM vitamin D thing was pure garbage and has been dissected here quite a bit and by several blogging doctors. D for adequate bone health is one thing, D for optimum overall health is a different and issue.
      Note there has been no evidence presented in that article, other articles, or on this board, that high D dosage is harmful for anyone.
      If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tfarny View Post
        That IOM vitamin D thing was pure garbage and has been dissected here quite a bit and by several blogging doctors. D for adequate bone health is one thing, D for optimum overall health is a different and issue.
        Note there has been no evidence presented in that article, other articles, or on this board, that high D dosage is harmful for anyone.
        True. However, is there evidence that high D dosage is beneficial? If so, I would be interested in seeing this study. If not, then on what basis is the recommendation for such high doses?

        Comment


        • #5
          doesn't the article assert that there could be evidence showing both results, and that the evidence could be flawed due to: a flaw in the study, a flaw in the observer, a flaw in the reporting, etc? and that more study using the method has to be done before utilizing these studies as advice?

          for me, the proof is in the pudding: if you experience it, then it's real.

          buddha said it best: do not believe something because I said it, because a great teacher said it, or because it is what the community says, believe it because you experience it.

          Comment


          • #6
            I hear you. That's just it, I am not experiencing it I guess. I have been taking large doses of Vitamin D, but I really don't feel any different or better. I don't feel bad, but I don't feel better. Not that I felt bad in the first place for that matter.

            Comment


            • #7
              right, so why dose?

              in my looking at the research and experiences on here, the people who benefit the most are people who had some sort of underlying issue, and then they dose up and the issue goes away.

              i don't have any of those issues or related, so i assume vit D is fine. i feel fine, rarely get sick, etc.

              what convinces me is the questions about "grok" and tanning and such. it makes sense to me that a tan is part of the natural protection mechanism (i believe this to be true), and it also makes sense to me that our bodies naturally synthesize using the sun. seeing as the sun is an unreliable source of uvb (based on time of day, location on the earth, pollution, cloud cover, etc), and the fact that it's too darn chilly here for me to wander around near-nekkid at the optimal time, an alternative is a scaled, balanced bulb at the tanning bed that provides UVA (damaging) and UVB (converts to D) tanning bed.

              but there are other benefits that i want from this: 1. warmth; 2. sunlight; and 3. slight tan for protection from the harsh sun here, to help prevent burning. the "base tan" so to speak, which makes sense. I already cover up and use sunscreen and stay out of the sun during the intense times, and as such take great care of my skin.

              but, i think that tanning is. . .worth a try. if it works for me, then great. if not, then no loss.

              i don't need science to reinforce my choice. if it does, fab. if not, i don't really care.

              Comment


              • #8
                Great Book, written by the foremost authority on Vitamin D.

                With everything you ever wanted to know, that is, if Cilikat can't also convince you that Vitamin D is the cats ass.
                SW: 235
                CW:220
                Rough start due to major carb WD.

                MWF: 1 hour run/walk, 1.5 hours in the gym - upper/lower and core
                Sat/Sun=Yard/house work, chasing kids, playing
                Family walk every night instead of everyone vegging in front of the TV
                Personal trainer to build muscle mass & to help meet goals

                Comment


                • #9
                  I will have to check out that book. Cilikat is one of the main reasons I upped my dose of Vitamin D in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Back to the message I took from the linked article-----Medical opinion, science, if you will, changes regularly. No, not changes, but oscillates.

                    During the early 70's of the last century I was working as a technician/helper in a laboratory in a large medical school. Just to earn a few shekels to offset my college and living expenses. When the professor failed to attain the results he wanted, he did not think of modifying his understanding of the science. His tack was for us to take a few days to consider ways to change our tests in order to achieve the 'expected' results. This is not such a strange occurrence.

                    Don't be too quick to respond to every breeze that blows your way.
                    Tayatha om bekandze

                    Bekandze maha bekandze

                    Randza samu gate soha

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well...my experience so far is that high levels of D work for me...I'm at 91 ng/ml according to my last test--not sick all year, living in the Pac NW. If Mercola can get a consistent level of 79 from the sun without any supplementation for 4 years in a row--and he's not exactly a 20 something lifeguard, I feel pretty comfortable keeping my level on the high side.

                      That said, I will get to drop most of my supplementation soon since we are moving to Santa Fe with 300 days of sun a year!
                      Ancestral Nutrition Coaching
                      Pregnancy Nutrition Coaching
                      Primal Pregnancy Nutrition Article

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by zoebird View Post
                        that's why i don't dose with vit D. unless there is a clear deficiency, i don't see the need. and, i would prefer to use sun (or tanning beds).

                        DH and i are talking about 10 minutes of tanning in low flow, balanced uva/uvb bulbs once or twice a week just to maintain healthy levels. Dh also takes cod liver oil (for any number of reasons) which is high in D (and A, which is his primary reason). so, yeah.

                        the article is great. everyone holds up science as this paragon of knowledge, when in reality, the method is great, but the researcher (the observer) isn't always. the conclusions may not be accurate, the study may have been flawed, etc etc.

                        that's why i'm always talking about what we don't know. yes, the information is interesting and can be very helpful. but it's not necessarily why one should do this or that.
                        I'm interested in this - I do supplement vitamin D, but then I live in west Scotland where grey is the order of nearly every day. With the obvious problems with normal sunbeds, what's the evidence that this sort of tanning is safe? I prefer the natural route when at all possible, and this is a step nearer to it than Vit D drops I think. Plus, there are those other photoproducts than surely do something good for us...
                        My primal journal
                        You might find these handy: Free gluten free restaurant cards in 50+ languages
                        In Praise of the Primal Lifestyle

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X