Vitamin D's wild days: Who to test, what to take?

[Celebration]

http://www.physorg.com/news138294530.html

Don't be surprised if your doctor orders a vitamin D test during your next physical. Blood tests to check levels of the so-called sunshine vitamin are on the rise as doctors and patients react to headline-grabbing research that suggests having too little may not only hurt your bones - it might increase your risk of certain cancers or heart disease.

But there are problems with deciding next steps: As intriguing as the research is, it's far from proof that vitamin D really is that powerful. Also, it's not clear just how much is enough - and megadoses can harm.

Nor are there guidelines on exactly who should be tested, or how. Test during winter, for example, and in much of the country people will harbor considerably less vitamin D than if they were tested in the sunny summer.

Still, "the hope is so high that it will have some effect that everybody's asking for it," says Dr. Clifford Rosen of the Maine Medical Center, who is helping government researchers evaluate the research. "It's pretty much the wild, wild West right now."

There is no count of how many people get their vitamin D checked. But at testing giant LabCorp, the volume of vitamin D tests doctors order has, on average, doubled every year for the past four, says spokesman Eric Lindblom. So far this year, test orders are up another 90 percent. At competitor Quest Diagnostics, the volume of D tests approximately tripled between May 2006 and last May.

I recommend the whole article.

Interesting. My dad was a doctor and I grew up with a spoonful of cod liver oil every single day. I also got a lot of sun sans sunsreen. I did not do that with my kids. Maybe we need to go back to the future.

[DesertFlower]

1. i was tested last year.

i'm okay. i do take a vitamin A supplement.

a few months ago i had all my levels tested including amino acids. i was low in glutathione and selenium. i'm now supplementing with them.

i was given cod liver oil when i was a young child.

[trotsky]

2. Sun exposure today is different than it was 30, 50, or more years ago.

Due to ozone depletion, even more UV light reaches the surface than it did then. Abandoning sunscreen isn't a wise thing to do.

[cosmik debris]

3. Hmmm?

The article references "testing giant LabCorp" and you have to believe this is a branch of "Big Pharma". And we all know big pharma lies to us about health issues. So why would they believe what "testing giant LabCorp" has to say?

I wonder why "testing giant LabCorp" gets a pass, but Pfizer doesn't?

Oh well.

[Celebration]

6. are you saying that LabCorp is lying?

And Qwest too? When they are interviewed about the increase in the number of bloodtests requested for Vitamin D?

It doesn't seem reasonable to me to assume that they are lying about this, although I admit that it is always a good idea to be skeptical.

[cosmik debris]

12. Don't put words in my mouth

And don't make up stuff and attribute it to me.

If you were unable to understand my post, that's too bad. I was speaking to trotsky, and he understood.

[Celebration]

14. Then don't put words in mine n/t

[cosmik debris]

15. I didn't. You are just making shit up to start a fight.

I suppose a tantrum is next.

[Celebration]

16. Your post #3 was picking a fight--

And I said nothing about "big pharma". So who is making stuff up?

[cosmik debris]

17. Post #3 was directed to trotsky and he did not seem to fight it.

And that post never mentioned you or anything you said.

If you weren't so interested in a fight, you wouldn't interrupt the conversation of others.

You are just being rude, aggressive, belligerent, and obnoxious. And you want to blame others for your problems.

Butt out.

[Celebration]

19. Hijacking a thread

For a *private* conversation-- and that is *not* rude, aggressive, belligerent, and obnoxious?

[cosmik debris]

20. Ahhh! the control freak in you comes to the fore!

You don't get to control who posts where.

Butt out.

[Celebration]

22. Nor do you get to have a *private* conversation

Exactly my point.

[cosmik debris]

23. Yes, I do. One post is not a conversation and I am not required

to address you in every post.

You are making up rules as you go along because you have a desperate need to be in charge and control others.

If you do not like my post, alert.

[Celebration]

24. The moderators are far too busy for crap like this

Let's leave it at this--

You can post what you want, within the rules, and so can I.

But saying your post is directed at one person, and therefore someone else shouldn't answer it, is completely ridiculous. All threads are open for responses, and all posts are open as well.

And, "rudeness" by any of us is not disallowed by the moderators.

[cosmik debris]

25. Again, don't put words in my mouth.

I did not say my "post is directed at one person, and therefore someone else shouldn't answer it"

You just made that shit up to be offensive.

[Celebration]

27. I didn't put these words in your mouth

"If you weren't so interested in a fight, you wouldn't interrupt the conversation of others."

[cosmik debris]

28. Seriously, are you unable to see the difference in those two sentences?

That's really sad.

[trotsky]

7. They're A-OK with big companies that tell them what they want to hear.

Never mind the cognitive dissonance involved!

[Celebration]

9. Are you attacking me or LabCorp here?

I am trying to figure out if you think LabCorp is lying. I don't, but it is always possible, I suppose.

Perhaps you can convince me that this is the case here? I'd like to hear your point of view.

[trotsky]

11. I don't doubt that LabCorp is correct. n/t

[Celebration]

4. not wise to get burned

But does sunscreen protect against the most dangerous forms of skin cancer? I sure would not rely on that. Sunscreen does not generally protect well against the most dangerous UVa radiation. A few of the newer sunscreens may do it to some degree, fortunately. But people using most sunscreen were protecting themselves from sunburns but not cancer. That allowed them to stay in the sun longer without readily apparent effect, exposing them to more of the dangerous UVa radiation.

The rise in melanoma has been exceptionally high in Queensland where the medical establishment has long and vigorously promoted the use of sunscreens. Queensland now has more incidences of melanoma per capita than any other place. Worldwide, the greatest rise in melanoma has been experienced in countries where chemical sunscreens have been heavily promoted(11).

Drs. Cedric and Frank Garland of the University of California are the foremost opponents of the use of chemical sunscreens. They point out that, although sunscreens do protect against sunburn, there is no scientific proof that they protect against melanoma or basal cell carcinoma in humans(11). There is, however, some evidence that regular use of sunscreens helps prevent the formation of actinic keratoses, the precursors of squamous cell carcinoma(12).

The Garland brothers strongly believe that the increased use of chemical sunscreens is the primary cause of the skin cancer epidemic. They emphasize that people using sunscreen tend to stay longer in the sun because they do not get a sunburn - they develop a false sense of security(7). Chemical sunscreens are formulated to absorb UVB radiation, they let most of the UVA rays through(7). UVA rays penetrate deeper into the skin and are strongly absorbed by the melanocytes which are involved both in melanin production (sun tanning) and in melanoma formation(11). UVA rays also have a depressing effect on the immune system(13).

[trotsky]

5. As with most products, you have to know what you're buying.

The good stuff blocks UVA and UVB. But that's not the point - if you're advocating going without sunscreen altogether, that is highly unwise.

[Celebration]

8. how about hats? Long sleeves?

I used to stay in the sun for long periods of time, and *without* getting burned. It is all about moderation. You start out slowly in the spring, and slowly build up a protective tan. If I was getting too much sun, I sat under an umbrella or a tree.

If I had used sunscreen in those days, I would not have taken such precautions--I would not have burned, but I would have been exposed to far more UVa (the bad kind) of radiation. I also got the Vitamin D benefits of the sun, which helped my immune system.

If people now don't know how to safely stay out in the sun without sunscreen, then that is some generational, cultural thing. Before sunscreen use became widespread, it was just common knowledge.

[trotsky]

10. There is no such thing as a "protective" tan.

That's a myth. Tanning is a form of damage to the skin. UV exposure is UV exposure and you can suffer burns and skin cancer whether or not you gradually build up a tan.

[Celebration]

13. And the early sunscreen and most sunscreens even now

Are dangerous. Any sunscreen allowing a person to get a false sense of security about sun exposure should be probably have harsh warnings on them.

If you don't want sun exposure, put on a hat and wear long sleeves, or sit under an umbrella.

UV exposure is UVa exposure and UVb exposure. They are different.

[trotsky]

18. In your trademark style, you are changing the subject.

1) How are sunscreens "dangerous"? You appear to be referring to the fact that they can convey a false sense of security - but that's not the fault of the sunscreen, that's the fault of the person using it.

2) I know that UVA and UVB are different. They cause different kinds of damage, and both should be avoided. *ALL* UV exposure is harmful.

3) You avoided responding to the main point: There is no such thing as a protective tan. Do you accept this fact?

[Celebration]

21. actually

According to the researchers that I linked, the extra Vitamin D that one gets from sun exposure is protective against cancer. But there is probably a whole lot not known about the various tradeoffs.

We do know that sunburns make a person much more predisposed to get melanoma, which is the most serious form of skin cancer. So, in the sense that one is less likely to get burned if there is a slight or moderate tan, then, yes, having a tan can be protective of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, although not the other types.

We can go on and on about UVa and UVb, and the false sense of security, etc. I think it is an important enough issue that sunscreens that don't adequately protect against UVa should have a strong black box warning. Even now, most sunscreen users are not even aware of the issue.

Unfortunately, our population for decades had no UVa protection, but did have the false sense of security by using inadequate sunscreen.

[trotsky]

26. You avoided the question again.

Do you acknowledge that there is no such thing as a "protective tan"?

[Celebration]

29. Incorrect

I addressed that directly----

To repeat:

In the case where a tan keeps the skin from burning, it is protective for melanoma. Now, if one has a tan, but stays in the sun long enough to burn anyway, it is not protective of melanoma. Generally speaking, a suntan is at least some protection from burning, and sunburns are directly related to melanoma.

But for the other (least dangerous) types of skin cancer, there is no protection from getting a tan, other than the possibility that more Vitamin D can help the immune system fight cancer. That would have to be weighed against the other effects of the sun. Again, the link provides more information on that.

[trotsky]

30. That's tenuous at best.

And you're neglecting to consider that to get the "protective" tan you've had to expose yourself to UV. The slight increase in resistance to UV is offset by the radiation it took to get it.

A tan is a sign of damage to your skin. If you are seriously recommending that people get a "protective tan" that's crazy. I know the altie sites are big on it but the medical consensus is exactly the opposite.

http://wuphysicians.wustl.edu/news.aspx?ID=715
There is no such thing as a protective tan. Tanning is a precancerous condition.

[Celebration]

31. Melanoma is by far more serious than other types of skin cancer

Melanoma is related to sunBURNS.

Sure, there are some other lesser types of skin cancer that are caused by overall exposure to the sun. Generally these are easily taken care of in the office of a dermatologist. It also seems that these lesser types of skin cancer can be protective against more serious solid tumors. Nothing can be looked at in isolation...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x41064

[trotsky]

32. That is NOT the same as what you were claiming.

Nice attempt, but no dice.

[Celebration]

33. it is an added bonus..........

My only claim was that suntans help prevent sunburns, and that sunburns are related to the most serious types of cancer.

However, you stated this--

"if you're advocating going without sunscreen altogether, that is highly unwise"--

Actually, people can easily go without sunscreen if they take other precautions to keep from getting either burned or tan. This is a sorta no brainer- hats, get under an umbrella, etc.

But as for a tradeoff, I prefer basal cell carcinoma to solid tumors. That is just a kind of thing that I have with risk/reward, etc.

[trotsky]

34. Changing the subject again.

Oh well, you are no longer defending your original assertion, so that's good.

[Celebration]

35. not changing a thing

Suntans are protective for sunburns. Sunburns are related to melanoma. Nothing changes that.

[trotsky]

36. Alright, then you're still wrong.

Getting that tan damages the skin in the first place. You are misinterpreting what you've posted, and you're still wrong.