-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 7096)
Message
Captcha
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: 7Z, GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, RAR, SWF, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 551 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here



File 142766908536.jpg - (20.82KB , 320x212 , image_php.jpg )
7096 No. 7096 ID: e8f72b
http://www.newswise.com/articles/scientists-confirm-institute-of-medicine-recommendation-for-vitamin-d-intake-was-miscalculated-and-is-far-too-low?utm_content=buffera19be&utm_medium=social&utm_source=
facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

>“Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially,” said Garland. “The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health.”

>The recommended intake of vitamin D specified by the IOM is 600 IU/day through age 70 years, and 800 IU/day for older ages. “Calculations by us and other researchers have shown that these doses are only about one-tenth those needed to cut incidence of diseases related to vitamin D deficiency,” Garland explained.

>Robert Heaney, M.D., of Creighton University wrote: "We call for the NAS-IOM and all public health authorities concerned with transmitting accurate nutritional information to the public to designate, as the RDA, a value of approximately 7,000 IU/day from all sources.”

>“This intake is well below the upper level intake specified by IOM as safe for teens and adults, 10,000 IU/day,” Garland said. Other authors were C. Baggerly and C. French, of GrassrootsHealth, a voluntary organization in San Diego CA, and E.D. Gorham, Ph.D., of UC San Diego.
Expand all images
>> No. 7097 ID: f013be
The first recommendation is with a population that's mostly european people, who can synthesize vitamin D with UV light

Second, much larger, recommendation is for black people and asians
>> No. 7098 ID: e8f72b
>>7097
So what you are saying is the 7,000 RDA number is for fair skinned and the 10,000 is for people with high melanin counts?

People's with more melanin in their skin then fair skinned people still synthesize vitamin D with UV light,, just at a slower rate.

For fair skinned people to get the recommended 10-14k IDU's a day, all it takes is 10-14 minutes of exposure to arms and legs. It is slightly longer for those of non fair skin but not ridiculously longer. Lighter skin is an adaptation to living farther from the equator, since the farther from the equator you are the less intense sunlight you are exposed to. The angle of the sun has a major effect on the amount of UV one is exposed to but this doesn't mean Blacks and Asians cannot synthesis vitamin D through UV light, they just do it at slightly to a bit more then slightly slower rates.
>> No. 7099 ID: f013be
>>7098
Everything we know about skin color suggests light skin is an adaptation to a diet poor in vitamin D

Skin cancer isn't an issue for people who rarely live to see their 30s
>> No. 7100 ID: e8f72b
>>7099
Very interesting, although that doesn't mean darker skinned people cannot produce vitamin D through UV light. Especially since it is very hard if not impossible to acquire 7-10k IDU's of vitamin D from diet alone. Or even close to that. The best you can get is about 450 IDU's from 3 ounces of food and that is a sockeye salmon fillet. No other food source seems to have a higher density of vitamin D. So in short we need to get vitamin D though UV light or supplementation for acquiring enough vitamin D through diet is almost neigh impossible.
>> No. 7101 ID: d652f6
File 142787736933.jpg - (76.14KB , 576x461 , i doooo computer.jpg )
7101
>>7099
That used to be the most suggested theory, but I was actually doing some light research on the subject a few months ago out of curiosity, and found that it's probably a bit more complicated matter than we thought.

I don't recall exactly what I read, but basically skin pigmentation prevents destruction of folate (the lack of which can cause severe birth defects, a much stronger evolutionary pressure than sunburn resistance or getting a cancer that would occur after the typical lifespan of a human in wilderness conditions) in the skin by UV rays. Pigmented skin is also thicker and a much better barrier against water loss and other environmental hazards, which is important in hairless animals like us.

The current suggested reason why some white northerners make more vitamin D is because they have a mutation that results in less or no filaggrin in the skin, which ultimately translates into more UV-B absorbed because of body chemistry I don't understand or remember.
The evolutionary pressure for white skin may simply be that pigmented skin has a metabolic cost that those in the far north couldn't afford. I'm less convinced on this part.


That's what I came across at the time anyways.
>> No. 7102 ID: c573ed
Skin color is based on region. Where there is more or less sunlight. Northern Europe having less sunlight, so people there have thinner skin to absorb more Vitamin D. If an African man/woman were to move to Scandinavia, they would end up with Rickets from the lack of sunlight. Point is, if you are getting Rickets, take Vitamin D.
>> No. 7106 ID: cd49aa
File 142889444895.jpg - (39.90KB , 440x589 , farmers-tan3.jpg )
7106
>>7102
My Mexican forearms can attest to this.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason