Skip to content
Way out speculation
avatar
DoloresTeresa posted:
Since the body makes vitamin D when the sun light reacts with oils on the skin, it occurred to me that our habit of showering at least daily could wash at least some of those oils off the skin thereby limiting the reaction and causing lower D levels.

I also wonder why people with very dark skin aren't getting illnesses from too little D to the point where it would be immediately apparent that something was wrong and there would be reports of huge members of the population, in epidemic proportions,especially above a certain latitude, suffering from all those D deficiency illnesses.

Dolores
Reply
 
avatar
EngineerGuy responded:
Hi Dolores,

Re: I also wonder why people with very dark skin aren't getting illnesses from too little D...


Indeed, that is one theory as to why blacks have higher rates of some cancers, diabetes, hypertension, etc.


Re: Since the body makes vitamin D when the sun light reacts with oils on the skin, it occurred to me that our habit of showering at least daily could wash at least some of those oils off the skin thereby limiting the reaction and causing lower D levels.


I ran at noon, wearing only trunks, and showered afterwards. I did get enough sunlight to get mild cataracts (which reversed, happily) and plenty of "sunspots" which are a skin cancer risk. Plus I took 400 IU in a multi, and I was still very deficient, at 16. I'll take a supplement, and limit my sun exposure, thank you. This mantra that 15 minutes sunlight 3x a week on face and hands, is all a person needs, is brain dead. A very few people are OK at that exposure.


Best regards, EngineerGuy
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to EngineerGuy's response:
EG, if blacks or anyone else is skinny and gets type 2 diabetes, then one could possibly attribute it to lack of D. On the other hand, overeating to the point of obesity or morbid obesity, or eating a SAD diet lacking in nutrition in blacks or anyone else will most likely produce a diabetic no matter how much sun he gets or how much vitamin D he consumes in pill form.

Also people of African ancestry retain salt more than people of more recent European ancestry. The salt retention is an evolutionary adjustment to living in extremely hot climates where salt can be lost through sweat. Unfortunately it takes more than a few generations of living under different conditions to correct the adjustment for new climates. Evolution just doesn't work that fast. So blacks are much more likely to succumb to a high salt diet and develop high blood pressure.

About certain cancers being more prevalent in blacks--would they have these higher rates of certain cancers on a Fuhrman, McDougall, Esselstyn type diet? If they would then there might be an argument for the cause being too little vitamin D. (As an aside--The very dark skin not only protects from skin cancers from too much sun, but prevents the destruction of folic acid which occurs from too much sun on the skin. This would reduce fertility. So nature insured the ability of Africans to reproduce by providing dark skin.)

Dolores
 
avatar
An_192680 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
Hi Dolores,

I found your post very insightful. Some of it echo's my own opinions exactly, which I generally find to be correct. :-)

Re: EG, if blacks or anyone else is skinny and gets type 2 diabetes, then one could possibly attribute it to lack of D.


Maybe, but there are many types and causes of diabetes. We have to watch that we don't go overboard.


Re: Unfortunately it takes more than a few generations of living under different conditions to correct the adjustment for new climates.


Similarly, many people ask how long it will take for us to adapt to the modern diet. The answer is never. The only way we would adapt, that that better adapted people would have more children, and less well adapted people have fewer children (that live). Happily, we work for all people to thrive, and be healthy and happy. If there are no evolutionary pressures, then random mutations, if mild enough not to prevent life, will over thousands of years, add up to degrade the survivability of the species. By the time this happens, we'll have the technology to combat it, assuming we are here at all. Let's be optimistic. :-)


Re: About certain cancers being more prevalent in blacks--would they have these higher rates of certain cancers on a Fuhrman, McDougall, Esselstyn type diet?


We might restate it: If we are on an excellent Fuhrman diet, does it matter if we are deficient in vtiamin D?


Yes, very much so. Certainly, vitamin D sufficiency and excellent plant rich diet, are both powerful factors to reduce cancer, heart disease, etc. There are examples of people following our program carefully, who had terrible health problems due to vitamin D deficiency, which was cured by D supplements.


Dr. Fuhrman had a patient "vomit man", that he discussed on a video (no longer available). This man had been vomiting up everything he ate, for 3 years. He could only keep down a thin paste of oatmeal. (Obviously he retained some nutrition). He was "on a very good diet" and healthy, but getting very thin. He went to 3 gastroenterologists, who prescribed 3 different treatments. One prescribed a medication that could cause permanent brain damage. Dr. Fuhrman "tested him for everything". His blood D level came back 5. Fuhrman gave him vitamin D supplements, and in a month he was cured. The man "followed one of the vegetarian doctors". The man said he was told all he needed was some sunlight, and he got sunlight.


One person on the McDougall board, with the family following the diet, described her young daughter coming down with serious rheumatoid arthritis. It turned out to be a D deficiency, and vitamin D supplements cured it.


There is no data that I have heard of to suggest that a D deficiency can be ameliorated by plant based diet.


Best regards, EngineerGuy
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to An_192680's response:
EG, in those cases you mentioned there was an obvious lack of D to produce those problems. But do you think everyone should take D because some might get seriously ill without it? Just as there is familial dangerously high cholesterol in some who require statins does not mean everyone with a cholesterol number higher than ideal should use statins.

Dolores
 
avatar
An_192681 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
Hi Dolores,

Re: But do you think everyone should take D because some might get seriously ill without it?


Not at all. The recommendation that I follow is to get a blood test for vitamin D. There is huge variation, person to person, in vitamin D requirements. Only by using a blood test can we know. Those who have adequate vitamin D with no supplements, can continue to take no supplements. Most people need 1500 to 2500 IU daily, to have 35 to 55 ng/ml blood vitamin D, the optimal level. A few people need much higher vitamin D supplement dosage.


If you change your vitamin D supplementation level, give your body 3 months to equilibrate to the new level, and then retest.


(I'm posting "anonymously" so my picture won't be all over the place.)


Best regards, EngineerGuy


Spotlight: Member Stories

I had my first and second heart attack in April 2003. ELEVEN years have passed since the heart attack. ELEVEN years since diagnosis of acute heart dis...More

Helpful Tips

Killer Athlete's Foot Cure
If you have athlete's foot, gently wash the affected area. I usually got it between my toes. Use a hair dryer on warm, to dry the foot for ... More
Was this Helpful?
12 of 21 found this helpful

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.