An interesting article here. I tend not to use sunscreen unless I go to the beach or do lots of gardening if it is 35+ and it is to prevent a likely sunburn. I don’t bother if I’m just doing my usual stuff.
Sim
An interesting article here. I tend not to use sunscreen unless I go to the beach or do lots of gardening if it is 35+ and it is to prevent a likely sunburn. I don’t bother if I’m just doing my usual stuff.
Sim
Argh it won’t let me edit
outsideonline.com/2380751/s...
How on earth did the author manage to bring racism into a discussion of vit D?
Hi Maisie the author was,I believe, just re-iterating that a darker skin tone absorbs sunlight/vit D at a slower rate than a lighter skin tone an acknowledge medical fact.i don't think there was any malice there.
I too am struggling to find the racism in here??? It is looking at biological facts concerning melanin in skin and it’s effects. It is a really interesting article. We know that sunny days often lift the mood for many and I for one, love being out on a sunny day. I’m not a sunbather, but everything looks so much more positive and bright in the sunshine (rather than on dark, dull, cold, damp days.) And the warmth is so much better for us chilly hypos! 🤸🏿♀️
soppysokes Identifying or acknowledging physical or medical differences within an individual race, or nation, or culture, such as there being a higher incidence of certain diseases amongst Ashkenazi Jews, Japanese people having fewer symptoms of hypothyroidism even when overtly hypothyroid, or Indonesians being generally the world's shortest men, is scientific fact. Racism or anything that leads to discrimination or bigotry has nothing to do with fact; and whilst it's reasonable to acknowledge that advice might not be universally applicable or accurate to all races or cultures, that's very definitely nothing to do with racism. Making a reference to racism in the strapline of a health article, smacks of internet-type attention-seeking to me; rather than quality journalism.
Sorry Maisie you're confusing me now lol.
It's a documented fact that the place where people suffer from low vitamin D is South Africa. I read a comment on here once from someone reporting there's was low andctgey are out in thecsun all day. Once you are tanned then you don't absorb anymore.
So the article is right
Within the above website is a chart indicating required levels to help prevent serious illness. NB - US measurements - x 2.5 for UK.
My husband sits in the sun most of the day when it is warm, plays golf twice a week, but has high blood pressure and had a heart attack a few weeks ago. I have been taking D3 and co-factors for about 3 years now and have nails - not brilliant, but better than they have ever been. When I stop the Vitamin D3, they break.
I found much the same result as your husband in that 3 years continual Mediterranean sun, no sunscreen vitamin d was still pretty low-6 months of supplementing D3 it was 101.
I have 2 thoughts:
1: I would expect people who naturally get enough vitamin D to be healthier anyway. It suggests they have an active job or hobbies, which naturally would make them less susceptible to heart disease
2: We idealise the mediteranean diet as being the gold standard, because of the low rates of things like heart disease in those countries, but maybe the high levels of sunlight all year round plays quite a big part in this.
Most Mediterranean people avoid the mid-day sun and take a siesta. The older folk are well covered all year. They do consume oily fish though. 11 - 3 pm is the best time for the correct rays to hit the skin for D production. I tested insufficient after living in Crete for 4 years and still supplement ...
The article suggested it wasn't just vitamin D that we benefit from, from being in the sun. It's interesting you still developed a vit D deficiency though! But I wonder if that's an autoimmune thing?
Possibly - having had gut TB and Crohns along with Hashimotos it is possible low VitD played its part - along with the BCG ...
Yes I read the article !
The article suggested that but d is only a proxy for whatever is actually beneficial
Interesting article, thanks for posting. I found the paragaph about the dangers of the chemicals used in sunscreen infuriating -- hormone disruptors and environmental toxins!
"However, like margarine, early sunscreen formulations were disastrous, shielding users from the UVB rays that cause sunburn but not the UVA rays that cause skin cancer. Even today, SPF ratings refer only to UVB rays, so many users may be absorbing far more UVA radiation than they realize. Meanwhile, many common sunscreen ingredients have been found to be hormone disruptors that can be detected in users’ blood and breast milk. The worst offender, oxybenzone, also mutates the DNA of corals and is believed to be killing coral reefs. Hawaii and the western Pacific nation of Palau have already banned it, to take effect in 2021 and 2020 respectively, and other governments are expected to follow."
Even ordinary moisturiser seems to be SPF15 these days.
The key message I take from this is not to stop wearing suntan cream on a sunny day in summer, or to stop supplementing if vit D levels are low, but simply to get outside more often. Not difficult or expensive, what’s to lose ?
Many of us with thyroid problems will have become less active, and perhaps we don’t get as much sunshine going for a walk or bike ride, gardening etc as we once did.
The article seems to suggest that burning is bad (anyone who’s been burnt knows that!!!), that supplementing doesn’t help (the things they measured). My doc is keen for me to get some sunshine for my mood and autoimmune reasons.
But yes, good food sources seem a good idea