Take the extremes; is cancer incidence markedly lower in perpetually sunny cities like Phoenix or Los Angeles compared to perpetually cloudy cities like Seattle or Portland? Surely the data would show if there were a notable difference for people exposed to 11 months of sun versus 10 months of clouds.
That's almost exactly how they found the connection, from the article:
> Early epidemiologic research showed that incidence and death rates for certain cancers were lower among individuals living in southern latitudes, where levels of sunlight exposure are relatively high, than among those living at northern latitudes
An obvious problem is confounding variables, this isn't a controlled correlation in any way. The article goes on to say:
> However, additional research based on stronger study designs is required to determine whether higher vitamin D levels are related to lower cancer incidence or death rates.
idk, being too sunny also leads to staying indoors more. especially in LA. i rarely get sun around here. just the other day, my doctor told me i have extremely low levels of vitamin D. and i started taking 10k mg doses of vitamin D, this also seem to help me sleep better at night.
>Take the extremes; is cancer incidence markedly lower in perpetually sunny cities like Phoenix or Los Angeles compared to perpetually cloudy cities like Seattle or Portland?
you need to compare not the whole populations of geographies - you nee to look at people who isn't evolutionary adapted (in this particular case - skin color to manage the sunlight and vitamin D level in particular) to the geographies they are currently living at.
For example, children autism is much higher in the Somali immigrant population in Minnesota and Sweden (vs. Somalis in Somali) as this immigrant population has, for obvious reasons, extremely low, frequently almost non-detectable, vitamin D levels.
If cancer rate has negative correlation with vitamin D levels, we'll, unfortunately, see it for sure in like a decade or 2 in those immigrant populations.
I was shocked when I got my vitamin D levels analyzed a couple of years ago. Yeah I work inside most of the time, like most programmers, but I also walk to work and easily get 10000 steps a day, so I thought I'd be OK. Nope, guess it wasn't enough especially since I'm in Chicago. My levels were in the deficient range. I now take supplements daily.
My personal experience (with no medical background except the Chiropractor's wife who recommended it) finds that Vitamin D supplements (5,000 IU) seems to help prevent & shorten colds & flu-like bugs. I mostly take that dosage when feeling slightly ill or run down.
Hey if you have a minute and don't mind would you tell me a little bit about where you work? I'm graduating in December with a software engineering degree and plan on move to Chicago afterwards, but it obviously isn't quite as well known for tech firms as big cities on the west coast
In the UK it's impossible to get Vitamin D from the Sun during Winter months, due to the high latitudes (it's above all of the US apart from Alaska, and is also above most of the population of Canada), even if you walk around naked at noon for an hour! Doctors here recommend everyone to take supplements.
From what I recall the season is from mid October to mid March. There's a few Vitamin D online calculators about if you're curious about where you live, also.
They mention that people in the Southern Hemisphere get more sun and have a lower incidence of cancer, but is that also true of Australians? Cause on average, people from the Southern Hemisphere have a lower caloric intake, which has also been linked to lower rates of cancer in general.
That being said, I really enjoy the fact that scientists are following so many rabbits in the war against cancer. This is going to pay huge dividends on the long run.
Listening to many people who are knowledgeable in researching & carrying out science experiments, I've begun to appreciate how impossible of a task it is to get really good data off of an experiment that involves humans & food intake over long periods of time.
> people from the Southern Hemisphere have a lower caloric intake
Do you have a source for this claim? In America, while not in the Southern Hemisphere, the CDC's Obesity Prevalence maps [1] show that obesity is concentrated in the southern states.
2017 Fattest Cities in America [2]:
1. Houston 4. Memphis 5. Tampa 6. Las Vegas 7. El Paso 9. Los Angeles 11. Tulsa 12. Miami
Vindication of my long-held opinion that the skin cancer groups, with their very extreme advice befitting milk-white Victorian ladies or photophobic vampires (always cover all skin at all times, avoid going outside whenever possible, wear a thick layer of sunscreen always), were taking things way too far.
I am in the deficient range for years even though I walk under the sun a few times per week for about 15 minutes each time, that's still far from enough it seems. I will take supplements now.
> even though I walk under the sun a few times per week for about 15 minutes each time,
This is a very very low amount of exposure to the sun, isn't it (esp depending on your latitude)? I'm asking because it sounds like you're phrasing it as if you think it's a decent amount.
It's honestly only recently that I'm realizing how little sun exposure most people enjoy/are used to. I feel like something's wrong if I don't get sun+fresh air much more frequently than you're describing.
I took a vitamin D supplement once, and had the worst migraine of my life hours later. Could have been a coincidence, but I'm in no rush to repeat the experience :-(
I started taking vitamin d because I have a family history of colon cancer, and it has been shown to reduce such instances. My doctor said it is one of the few vitamin supplements that has strong clinical evidence to support its use. A happy side effect was that vitamin d also nearly totally made my acne go away. I take on 5000IU in the morning and one at night.
I wonder if those studies that link latitudes with cancer accounted for cold weather? A quick google search revealed that there seems to be a relation there: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/269266.php
I was super deficient being a programmer inside all the time. My levels were literally zero when I went in because I felt like I was dying, bones hurt, extreme fatigue. 10,000 IU 3 times for three weeks fixed it. I've been taking 2000IU every day ever since, and my serum levels still don't go above 20.
Thats the advice I give my kids. They don't go outside without sunscreen and hats. But I am beginning to wonder if it isn't an oversimplification. There is no doubt sun exposure is harmful but there is an absolutism that precludes public debate on the benefits and relative risks. I know my skin can't moderate its immune system without some sun damage and oral vitamin D has no equivalent benefit. Not that my experience should be the basis for public health advice, but it is enough to raise some doubts in my mind about the amount of balance in the discussion.
[+] [-] DoodleBuggy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rm999|8 years ago|reply
> Early epidemiologic research showed that incidence and death rates for certain cancers were lower among individuals living in southern latitudes, where levels of sunlight exposure are relatively high, than among those living at northern latitudes
An obvious problem is confounding variables, this isn't a controlled correlation in any way. The article goes on to say:
> However, additional research based on stronger study designs is required to determine whether higher vitamin D levels are related to lower cancer incidence or death rates.
[+] [-] jaequery|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|8 years ago|reply
you need to compare not the whole populations of geographies - you nee to look at people who isn't evolutionary adapted (in this particular case - skin color to manage the sunlight and vitamin D level in particular) to the geographies they are currently living at.
For example, children autism is much higher in the Somali immigrant population in Minnesota and Sweden (vs. Somalis in Somali) as this immigrant population has, for obvious reasons, extremely low, frequently almost non-detectable, vitamin D levels.
If cancer rate has negative correlation with vitamin D levels, we'll, unfortunately, see it for sure in like a decade or 2 in those immigrant populations.
[+] [-] mamoswined|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattferderer|8 years ago|reply
Some important factors on receiving Vitamin D from sun exposure are skin color, the amount of clothing you wear & time of day.
Light skin absorbs more than dark skin. Noon gives more Vitamin D than morning or evening. Sun screen & sun screen lotion limit the Vitamin D you get.
Being a fellow northerner, walking outside doesn't do much in the winter when 95% of my body is covered in clothing.
Science Vs did a great podcast on this - https://gimletmedia.com/episode/vitamins-supplements-worth/ (Vitamin D is their first supplement they discuss & the link provides a transcript for skimming)
My personal experience (with no medical background except the Chiropractor's wife who recommended it) finds that Vitamin D supplements (5,000 IU) seems to help prevent & shorten colds & flu-like bugs. I mostly take that dosage when feeling slightly ill or run down.
[+] [-] fraflo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asah|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monksy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whitepoplar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstuart|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chippy|8 years ago|reply
From what I recall the season is from mid October to mid March. There's a few Vitamin D online calculators about if you're curious about where you live, also.
[+] [-] VeejayRampay|8 years ago|reply
That being said, I really enjoy the fact that scientists are following so many rabbits in the war against cancer. This is going to pay huge dividends on the long run.
[+] [-] mattferderer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oicu812|8 years ago|reply
Do you have a source for this claim? In America, while not in the Southern Hemisphere, the CDC's Obesity Prevalence maps [1] show that obesity is concentrated in the southern states.
2017 Fattest Cities in America [2]: 1. Houston 4. Memphis 5. Tampa 6. Las Vegas 7. El Paso 9. Los Angeles 11. Tulsa 12. Miami
[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/11/17/7230641/maps-charts-obesity-w...
[2] https://www.mensfitness.com/weight-loss/burn-fat-fast/the-fi...
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|8 years ago|reply
https://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm
NOTE: Steve Gibson is a security researcher and software developer, NOT a doctor, so take the page with a shaker of salt.
[+] [-] gnu8|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corpMaverick|8 years ago|reply
https://www.vitamindwiki.com/Cluster+headaches+substantially...
I got results right away last time I had a cluster. I am crossing my fingers that this is it.
[+] [-] marxama|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ausjke|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wutbrodo|8 years ago|reply
This is a very very low amount of exposure to the sun, isn't it (esp depending on your latitude)? I'm asking because it sounds like you're phrasing it as if you think it's a decent amount.
It's honestly only recently that I'm realizing how little sun exposure most people enjoy/are used to. I feel like something's wrong if I don't get sun+fresh air much more frequently than you're describing.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|8 years ago|reply
In a bathing suit in Mexico in summer, a fair skinned person will produce their entire daily allotment in just a few minutes.
But that same person with pants and short sleeves might need an hour or more in Michigan in spring.
[+] [-] Tharkun|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayess|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skmurphy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp821543|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legulere|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jryan49|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdburn|8 years ago|reply
Some say 60-80 blood serum level is the optimal (80+ is possibly toxic) while others point to 40-50 as healthy
[+] [-] kstrauser|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackmott|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimjimjim|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shirro|8 years ago|reply