Hi everyone

In an article I wrote on supplements last year, I argued that we could all get out in the sun more, even in winter, rather than supplement for Vitamin D. Sure, we get less sunlight in the winter than in the summer, but we could all adjust our lifestyles to get a lot more of what there is available!

I then received the following comment from 'D', the like of which I have come across before (particularly from supplement advocates): 'Big flaw in your Vitamin D statement. In latitudes above ~34, the sun is too low in the winter to produce Vitamin D because the required UV light is blocked by the atmosphere.'

I then commented that this was a theory only, but in subsequent correspondence with 'D', I was informed it was a 'scientifically proven fact' (although he/she did not provide a source.) On googling, I've found several sources that say that UV light is most definitely still coming through in winter, but none that discuss whether the level meets 'requirements' for producing Vitamin D.

I'd be interested in any information people can supply.

Firstly, IS D's statement a 'scientifically proven fact', or is it a theory/claim?

If the first, can anyone provide a scientific source for it, that states specifically which areas, how many months etc, and, most importantly, how the conclusion was reached?

If the second, can anyone provide a link to a reputable source querying/debunking it?

(I know this isn't exactly a seasonable topic, but any help would be appreciated, as collecting info for a future article on Vitamin D.)

debbie,

This was the only clinical data I could find that deals with suppressed UV rays in winter:

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

It does not a comprehensive argument make, obviously, but is provoking.

THanks, Tamukha. It will 'go into the mix'!

Guys, the way I think of it is like this:

It's like teeth. Our teeth need continual treatment and care because 99.9% of us were from birth raised to have a very acidy environment in our bodies and so our teeth grew fragile. That's why we have to wash them.

Similarly, our bones may need extra care as well. I'm not saying it as a certainty, but it's the ONE THING that appears a credible argument for dairy. That's why I sometimes take calcium+vitamin d supplements.

SuperInfinity,

Your body cannot assimilate the calcium from dairy, unless it's raw, which most isn't. This is because the calcium is not available until the casein is digested, and the casein cannot be digested easily because it is a peculair amino acid sequence to us(not like our mother's milk) and is acidifying, requiring that large amounts of calcium from our blood and bones be dumped into the digestion of it to equalize alkalinity. Ironically, this leads to calcium deficiency. And of course, cow's milk has almost no Vit D in it naturally because calves are supposed to get it from sunlight, just like us. The additive form is usually artificial and therefore also not assimilable. If your supplements are whole food form, that's good.

Okay I totally agree with you that it would be a MILLION times better from brocolli and other cruciferous vegetables that contain lots of calcium. Casein is a terrible toxic susbtance and known carcinogen for humans, however to say that cow's milk can cause a calcium deficiency is a bit of a stretch.

Don't worry, I'm not condoning drinking cow's milk for a second, but let's be objective. For all its failings, cow's milk is the one glue that is barely holding the bastardized, malformed SAD together. Otherwise *everyone* would get osteoporosis and fractures from their incredibly acid-filled insides. The fact is that cow's milk has a LOT of calcium compared to how much we're supposed to intake. It is also supplied with lactose, which makes it much better for absorption. Cow's milk also provides you with vitamin d in some form or another... at least just enough not to cause huge bone problems.

That's why people who take dairy can sometimes say: "haha look you have bone problems" to people who cut it out and continue to eat refined foods. Because of our lack of vitamin d from the sun (which we should get hours of every day)... we OURSELVES are at possible risk if we're not extra careful.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SuperInfinity,
>
> Your body cannot assimilate the calcium from
> dairy, unless it's raw, which most isn't. This is
> because the calcium is not available until the
> casein is digested, and the casein cannot be
> digested easily because it is a peculair amino
> acid sequence to us(not like our mother's milk)
> and is acidifying, requiring that large amounts of
> calcium from our blood and bones be dumped into
> the digestion of it to equalize alkalinity.
> Ironically, this leads to calcium deficiency. And
> of course, cow's milk has almost no Vit D in it
> naturally because calves are supposed to get it
> from sunlight, just like us. The additive form is
> usually artificial and therefore also not
> assimilable. If your supplements are whole food
> form, that's good.

Debbie, this topic was discussed on this board, maybe 6 months ago, someone posted similar information that suggested that in most of the UK there wouldn't be enough sunlight for us to make vit D in the winter. You could maybe search this forum for it?

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

Thanks, Rob - I'll check.

SuperInfinity,

Agree about crucifers, but there is science behind my suggestion that cow's milk causes calcium deficiency--it's not a "stretch;" it's known food chemistry. Do an internet search of research concerning rates of osteoporosis in dairy- consuming human populations, which have been extensively studied. There is not a single independent clinical study that correlates dairy consumption with amelioration of bone health. Here's just one entry from 2005:

[www.news-medical.net]

Also, if you can find a copy of the August, 2009 Natural Solutions magazine, they had a very thoroughly cited article on dairy calcium and bone health.

I agree, Tamukha.