[HN Gopher] Vitamin D: Potent regulator of dopaminergic neuron d...
___________________________________________________________________
Vitamin D: Potent regulator of dopaminergic neuron differentiation
and function
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 148 points
Date : 2023-05-28 15:46 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
| helph67 wrote:
| Vitamin D3 can help avoid Covid-19 infection, IMHO elderly should
| take it daily. https://scitechdaily.com/study-finds-
| vitamin-d3-important-fo...
| TACIXAT wrote:
| I started drinking milk a year or two ago. Most milks have
| vitamin D added. It has made a stark difference in my life and it
| wasn't until I was looking back saying "I'm a lot happier than I
| was this time last year" that I figured out what changed.
|
| Highly recommend supplementing with D. If you can tolerate
| lactose, milk is a nice pathway for it.
| diydsp wrote:
| This is my 19 video playlist against drinking cow's milk from
| numerous perspectives:
| https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2902gO5LRhoKkh6z9m3kx09X...
|
| >If you can tolerate lactose, milk is a nice pathway for it.
|
| Smoking cigarettes gets you oxygen.... Just take a D supplement
| and avoid the saturated fat, hormones, pus, and sugar found im
| cow's milk. Cow's milk is also implicated in type 1 diabetes
| and Parkinson's disease.
| jdnier wrote:
| Cancer as well. See The China Study
| (https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/). See also
| this summary of other research studies here:
| https://nutritionstudies.org/12-frightening-facts-milk/
| haldujai wrote:
| I didn't read the first link but looking at the second one
| this is typical nutritional pseudoscience misrepresentation
| of evidence, the nutritionstudies.org author states:
|
| "A large observational cohort study[1] in Sweden found that
| women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had
| almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those
| women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the
| high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In
| fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures."
|
| Which is a misleadingly confident interpretation of the
| cited paper which concludes with:
|
| "High milk intake was associated with higher mortality in
| one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, and with
| higher fracture incidence in women. Given the observational
| study designs with the inherent possibility of residual
| confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious
| interpretation of the results is recommended."
|
| Beyond correlation =/= causation, note the trepidation in
| the referenced authors conclusion. Furthermore some of this
| has been subsequently contradicted by other studies[0]
| (probably why the Swedish authors had hesitation). [1]
| provides a more detailed explanation of why the originally
| referenced study has limited interpretability.
|
| Avoid milk all you want but suggesting "milk is bad for
| you" is supported by evidence is very misleading, there is
| conflicting poorly controlled observational evidence on
| both sides of the discussion. If you like milk, drink it
| within reason and don't feel bad (for your health).
|
| [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-
| journal-of-n...
|
| [1]
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-017-4088-y
| slickrick216 wrote:
| You should stop peddling vegan bro science. There's nothing
| wrong with milk.
| myshpa wrote:
| > avoid the saturated fat, hormones, pus, and sugar found im
| cow's milk
|
| Add blood, antibiotics, pesticides/herbicides and endotoxins.
|
| > Cow's milk is also implicated in type 1 diabetes and
| Parkinson's disease
|
| Yes, and note that cheeses are concentrated milk, so much
| much worse.
| finikytou wrote:
| yeah take some random powder made by a lab that put some
| random "US SAFETY" trademark on it. much better than getting
| some organic milk from a farmer. thanks.
| PuffinBlue wrote:
| 19 videos! That's quite the pile of research.
| coldtea wrote:
| [flagged]
| vile_wretch wrote:
| More like a pile of clickbait and quackery. The video from
| a holistic dentist is enough to invalidate the entire list
| in my eyes. Holistic dentistry suggests that oil pulling
| can repair cavities, that cavities disrupt "meridians" in
| the body and can then cause cancer and other wild ideas.
| Not to mention the fact that having mercury amalgam
| fillings removed (a big topic in holistic dentistry) is far
| more dangerous than having them in your mouth.
| diydsp wrote:
| [flagged]
| gordian-mind wrote:
| Why didn't you do that, instead of collecting clickbait
| YouTube videos?
| diydsp wrote:
| Nice troll account you've got there. Pity if someone were
| to have saved the results from the recent alias-account
| finder and unmask you...
|
| Anyway as i said above i have been wanting to go through
| all of the dozens of references but i have other
| projects, a long drive to work, and little desire to
| please others. i have taken the step of standing on
| others' shoulders and collecting their work. Spoon-
| feeding it to people who have made up their minds to not
| consider science has lately sagged on my list of desires.
| coldtea wrote:
| You can find papers on anything if you put in the
| keywords. They'll also study bogus new age things, just
| to try to settle the actual science (and in some cases
| the papers will be from subpar journals that still get
| indexed. Pubmed has a big warning label that a paper
| being there doesn't mean the contents are endorsed by
| NIH.
|
| Here are results for homeopathy
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22homeopathy%22
| and fad diets
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=atkins+diet
|
| In this case, the list is low tier papers and journals,
| or some systemical survey type papers (or low quality
| first order papers) that still don't reach any
| conclusions.
| vile_wretch wrote:
| That's a terrible analogy but sure - if I were evaluating
| whether "SQLite is good" based on a playlist of
| programmers and one of them was by one person of an
| occupation based entirely around pseudoscientific
| beliefs, some of which are actively harmful, I would
| probably discount the rest of the videos in the playlist.
| Especially when many of the other videos are from
| creators who mainly post clickbait and more
| pseudoscience.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| Can you tl;dw the most compelling arguments?
| diydsp wrote:
| Sure ive been meaning to review them and make a super
| compilation... tho I have a small backlog of projects...
| But the above reasons are the shortlist of health ones: sat
| fat, sugar, hormones, T1D, and Parkinsons. There are addl
| args along the lines of economics (subsidies that don't
| benefit large pops of minorities), animal welfare,
| osteoporosis, casein addictiom in cheese and similar. I've
| been wanting to collect, validate, and index all the
| references... but for now one has to get them from the
| videos. And some of them are actually in favor of milk,
| btw... but generally the ones in favor are single sources
| and /or by the dairy industry. But if you want strong bones
| and muscles, eat what strong animals like gorillas and
| bulls eat.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| > if you want strong bones and muscles, eat what strong
| animals like gorillas and bulls eat.
|
| This is a really silly comparison, to compare humans to
| animals with different genetics, digestion traits and
| hormones. Male gorillas have MASSIVE amounts of
| testosterone and minimal myostatin. Their body doesn't
| break down muscle. Humans are not like this at all, and
| if you disagree then please show me a vegetarian body
| builder, or even vegetarian elite strength athletes.
| myshpa wrote:
| You need some strength and endurance to be ultra runner,
| yes?
|
| https://www.adaptnetwork.com/veganadventurist/8-most-
| success...
|
| https://ultra-x.co/which-ultra-runners-are-plant-based-
| or-ve...
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| Ultra running is not a strength sport, so I'm not sure
| your point here
| myshpa wrote:
| It was originally about "strong bones and muscles".
|
| And ultra-running is much more cool than body building ;p
|
| But if you insist.
|
| https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=vegan%20bodybuilders
|
| https://images.google.com/search?q=vegan+bodybuilder&tbm=
| isc...
|
| https://www.peta.org/living/food/vegan-bodybuilders/
|
| https://www.setforset.com/blogs/news/vegan-bodybuilders
| edmundsauto wrote:
| Bill Pearl, 4x Mr. Olympia, is a very famous one. There
| are other successful bodybuilders who are vegan. Pretty
| trivial to google, so I'm not sure why you issued such a
| challenge but there ya go.
|
| "Meat is definitely not the secret to bodybuilding," Bill
| Pearl later said.
|
| https://www.thebarbell.com/vegan-
| bodybuilder/#:~:text=Jehina....
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| Bill Pearl became a vegetarian at age 39, at the end of
| his bodybuilding career. And he ate eggs and dairy
| products. And he was a body builder in the 50's and 60's.
| But other than that...great example!
| paulddraper wrote:
| Can I eat what a T-Rex eats?
|
| Or what a shark eats?
|
| This argument is absurd.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| > But if you want strong bones and muscles, eat what
| strong animals like gorillas and bulls eat.
|
| Both of those animals have a fermentation based digestive
| system so they can digest fiber that humans can't.
|
| I'll take the diet and strength of a wolf or bear,
| thanks.
| diydsp wrote:
| Bears are not as carnivorous as some people might think:
| https://storyteller.travel/what-do-bears-eat/
| myshpa wrote:
| > they can digest fiber that humans can't
|
| Some humans still have the ability, but most have lost
| it. It depends on you microbiome. But we still don't have
| to consume meat, not in this day and age, and with our
| supermarkets and online recipes.
|
| > I'll take the diet and strength of a wolf
|
| "Wolves are known to scavenge and consume dead or rotten
| meat when they come across it. Wolves have a remarkable
| ability to tolerate and digest decaying flesh. Scavenging
| on carcasses can be an important source of food for
| wolves, especially during times when hunting is
| challenging or prey is scarce."
|
| I'd like to see it ... please find some friends, and
| without weapons hunt and with your teeth and nails take
| down an elk or something. Then eat it raw.
|
| And if you're not successfull, find some carcass and
| enjoy ! Remember to start from the anus, where it's
| easier to tear.
| jgoodhcg wrote:
| Didn't watch that playlist but in general the arguments
| against cows milk are:
|
| - hormones from the cows and their supplements is in the
| milk and impacts our hormone system in negative ways
|
| - antibiotics used excessively in cows are in the milk and
| have negative affects on an individual level and might also
| contribute to the bacteria antibiotic arms race
|
| - saturated fats are generally bad and should be minimized
| in the human diet. Milk is full of them and they are direct
| causes of heart disease and other top killer health issues
| for people
|
| - sugar argument similar to saturated fats but for diabetes
|
| - milk production is generally inhumane in its treatment of
| animals and it's on a pretty big scale
| nazgulnarsil wrote:
| zero/low dairy consumption is associated with higher all
| cause mortality
| [deleted]
| xcv123 wrote:
| > saturated fats are generally bad and should be
| minimized in the human diet.
|
| About 30 years out of date, based on corrupt fraudulent
| industry "research", completely ignoring recent studies
| over the past 20 years which have debunked all of that.
| We need saturated fat. It is essential. Animal fats are
| loaded with fat soluble vitamins you won't get from
| industrial seed oil. Vegetable oils are toxic rancid
| garbage loaded with Omega-6 and 100% deficient in fat
| soluble nutrients.
| amelius wrote:
| > hormones from the cows and their supplements is in the
| milk and impacts our hormone system in negative ways
|
| Eating red meat has the same problem I suppose.
|
| All those "manly" men behind their BBQs are slowly
| turning into women.
| finikytou wrote:
| and once they turn into women then they start eating tofu
| and are dying from b12 deficiency right?
|
| the level on HN really dropped those last years.
| [deleted]
| grugagag wrote:
| How about kefir? It has much lower lactose and the
| benefit is all the probiotics. I drink a little every day
| and my gut is liking it. I don't drink any milk at all
| spirit557 wrote:
| > - saturated fats are generally bad and should be
| minimized in the human diet. Milk is full of them and
| they are direct causes of heart disease and other top
| killer health issues for people
|
| Of course, that's why a human mother's milk is 50-60%
| saturated fat, right? Saturated fat consumption grams per
| capita has basically remained steady for the last 120
| years or risen slightly, even 20 years before heart
| disease started to surge right around the time Crisco in
| the 1920s was introduced into the food supply.
|
| Let's look at the data since 1900. We were told to
| replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated. Look let's
| see how that turned out:
|
| https://www.cureamd.org/dr-knobbe-presents-macular-
| degenerat...
|
| Wow, would you look at that rise in heart disease deaths.
| Totally running in lock step with saturated fat
| consumption wasn't it? Whoops, nope!
| briHass wrote:
| The thing that always bothers me about 'x is bad for you'
| arguments about food is: what is the alternative food
| that provides similar positive things without the
| supposed harms? I'm assuming the case here is against
| dairy in general, which can provide easily digestible
| protein, a mix of fats, and B vitamins with a minimal
| amount of carbohydrates. Besides lean meats and eggs, you
| aren't going to find other sources of those things in
| similar ratios in easy to consume quantities.
| haldujai wrote:
| The other thing with "[specific food/drink] is [good/bad]
| for you" is that it's nearly impossible to study at
| baseline with a million confounders so it's all
| hypothetical pseudoscience at best.
|
| Living a life of generally avoiding processed foods and
| sugar as well as emphasizing lean meats/protein and
| vegetables is probably the best thing any of us can do
| for ourselves whatever that combination may look like for
| an individual.
|
| Anyone who makes a claim that anything specific is
| beneficial is almost certainly talking out of their ass
| or selling a product.
|
| Recall the food pyramid, the greatest corporate
| pseudoscience scam ever pulled. There was also a
| generation that was told "butter is bad for your health".
|
| "- hormones from the cows and their supplements is in the
| milk and impacts our hormone system in negative ways
|
| - antibiotics used excessively in cows are in the milk
| and have negative affects on an individual level and
| might also contribute to the bacteria antibiotic arms
| race
|
| - saturated fats are generally bad and should be
| minimized in the human diet. Milk is full of them and
| they are direct causes of heart disease and other top
| killer health issues for people"
|
| None of this is supported by evidence, picking the last
| argument as an example:
|
| > Multiple reviews of the evidence have demonstrated that
| a recommendation to limit consumption of saturated fats
| to no more than 10% of total calories is not supported by
| rigorous scientific studies. Importantly, neither this
| guideline, nor that for replacing saturated fats with
| polyunsaturated fats, considers the central issue of the
| health effects of differing food sources of these fats.
| The 2020 DGAC review that recommends continuing these
| recommendations has, in our view, not met the standard of
| "the preponderance of the evidence" for this decision."
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541481/
| briHass wrote:
| I would add that energy balance (i.e. don't get fat) is
| probably the most important thing, assuming a reasonably
| healthy diet. Conversely, there's no diet that will save
| you if you're carrying excess pounds and/or are gaining
| weight beyond what is the ideal body composition.
|
| Many of the diet studies, as poor as they are, that show
| beneficial changes due to diet almost always involve fat
| loss from baseline. Whatever diet can satisfy you and
| keep the weight down appears to be the local optimum.
| rolisz wrote:
| What about "organic" milk? By that I mean milk that is
| grown by my small local farm, humane conditions for the
| cows, no antibiotics or supplements for them.
| myshpa wrote:
| You'd still get pus, blood, endotoxins, hormones (like
| estrogen), pesticides/herbicides (organic farms still
| usually use them), etc.
|
| Only 40% of consumers in UK [0] know that a cow has to
| give a birth to a calf to be able to give milk. Male
| calves are usually immediately killed these days, or sold
| for meat in a few months (together with 25?% of female
| calves). In dairy industry calves are removed from their
| mothers the day they're born (only 27% of consumers know
| this), in beef industry they're usually kept together.
|
| The saddest story I've seen is a mother cow who gave
| birth to two calves. Because she was not first-time
| mother, she prepared. One calf was immediately taken
| away, the other she managed to hide somewhere in the
| fields. Of course when the farmer found about it
| (insufficient milk output), he located the calf and took
| it away. I can't find it, but here is a similar story.
| [1]
|
| All dairy cows are forcibly impregnated every year, are
| spent after 5-6 years to the point where they often can
| no more walk [2], and instead of a normal life which
| would be 20-48? years (upper number is the record)
| they're taken to the slaughterhouse [3].
|
| > humane conditions for the cows
|
| That doesn't exist, not even on small local farms.
| Humane? It's an oxymoron.
|
| [0] https://plantbasednews.org/culture/ethics/brits-
| willing-go-v...
|
| [1] https://www.trendcentral.com/mother-cow-hides-calf/
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI - Dairy
| is scary!
|
| [3] https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
| diydsp wrote:
| That alleviates hormones and animal welfare at least.
| Issues with allergies, sugar and sat fat remain. But
| hopefully also there is less consumed im this manner.
| Part of the problem is the _pushing_ of people to consume
| quantities via celebrity advertising, USDA guidlines,
| etc.
| paulddraper wrote:
| That's fine, though USDA makes this exceedingly rare
| loa_in_ wrote:
| Three out of five are probably true in USA, but what
| about elsewhere?
| yarg wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr_IChgWB5o&t=159s
| jader201 wrote:
| > _This is my 19 video [YouTube] playlist against drinking
| cow 's milk from numerous perspectives_
|
| I've pretty much stopped trusting YouTube as a source for
| scientific evidence.
|
| The motivation for YouTube content creators is views -- much
| like news media, which I trust about as much.
|
| Sure, there are individual creators that are probably fine,
| but I'd have to already recognize them to trust them.
| Otherwise it will be hard for me to not have some skepticism
| for random videos shared by others.
|
| Otherwise, I view YouTube consumption as mostly
| entertainment, or DIY.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _Sure, there are individual creators that are probably
| fine, but I'd have to already recognize them to trust
| them._
|
| There is also an unfortunatly inverse correlation with
| subscribers/views/production quality and trustworthiness.
|
| A channel can't succeed unless it optimizes for
| entertainment value and click bait after all.
|
| So the videos with very high informational value generally
| have no discernable differences to completely insane
| conspiracy theory rants... Well, aside from the words
| they're saying. Okay, that's an exaggeration. The
| conspiracy theorists will likely have lots of videos, while
| the person with the good educational content will likely
| have uploaded <10 videos over several years
| puttycat wrote:
| I started taking vitamin D supplements (D3 pills) after getting
| a blood test with below norm vitamin D level. Saw an immediate
| improvement in concentration, mood and energy throughout the
| day. (this is merely anecdotal, of course)
|
| I don't see how milk itself is related though.
| BossingAround wrote:
| Milk consumption is pretty horrible for the environment (and
| I'm not even mentioning what happens to animals on milk farms).
| I say that as a (full-of-shame) milk drinker, but recommending
| milk because of vitamin D is pretty ridiculous to me.
|
| There are so many vitamin D pills that are much cheaper than
| milk, and much better for the environment while having the same
| function.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| I drink milk from my local farm, and they sell their beer.
| Win win.
| cashsterling wrote:
| Depends heavily on diary farming practice. Open-pasture diary
| (which is a minority practice) is not bad for the
| environment: low energy use for high calorie production,
| methane emission vastly reduced, excellent soil management.,
| humane treatment of the cows. And the milk tastes amazing.
|
| Industrial agriculture is pretty horrible for the environment
| and also unsustainable for long term soil management. But it
| is what we need at the moment to feed the world's population.
| armatav wrote:
| Environment won't care, drink milk
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Medicine, computers, and building materials for EVs and well
| insulated homes are also "horrible" for the environment. We
| gladly make that sacrifice because we're happy with the
| trade. I understand _you_ aren 't, and that's fine.
|
| It should also be noted that not all dairy production is
| equal. New Zealand, for example, produces milk with a much
| lower carbon footprint
| (https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5794851/carbon-footprint-
| of-...). The formula isn't a secret. Grass fed cows produce
| less methane and CO2. There is also amazing research on
| reducing methane production by up to 98% by supplementing the
| diet of cows with seaweed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/art
| icles/2022-11-30/seaweed-a....).
|
| The point being, advocating for abstention is rarely a
| winning strategy. Instead we should use technology and policy
| to _improve_ our production methods. Then we can save the
| environment _and_ continue to enjoy products we consider to
| be important to our lifestyles. Don 't let perfect be the
| enemy of good.
| myshpa wrote:
| > reducing methane production by up to 98%
|
| The burps are not everything.
|
| https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23738600/un-fao-meat-
| dair...
|
| "many peer-reviewed studies, ... put livestock emissions at
| between 14.5 percent and 19.6 percent of the world's total"
|
| "... it doesn't factor in the significant climate benefits
| we'd get if we freed up some of the land now dedicated to
| livestock farming and allowed forests to return, unlocking
| their potential as "carbon sinks" that absorb and sequester
| greenhouse gases from the air.
|
| Scientists call this the opportunity cost of animal
| agriculture's land use. Because animal farming takes up so
| much land -- nearly 40 percent of the planet's habitable
| land area -- that opportunity cost is massive ...
|
| "One study found that ending meat and dairy production
| could cancel out emissions from all other industries
| combined over the next 30 to 50 years."
|
| > we can save the environment and continue to enjoy
| products we consider to be important to our lifestyles
|
| No, we can't.
|
| _Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce
| Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5degC of Global Warming
| (2018)_
|
| https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-
| agricult...
|
| _Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth
| system exceeding planetary boundaries_
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricult
| u...
|
| _IPCC: Slashing Emissions From Meat Crucial to Climate
| Action_
|
| https://sentientmedia.org/ipcc-report-food-system/
|
| _Why the food system is the next frontier in climate
| action_
|
| https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/04/why-the-food-
| syst...
| namaria wrote:
| Human civilization is pretty horrible for the environment
| in it's current form. Trying to break it down vertically
| and pinpointing personal choices on it is an exercise in
| diversion. We need deep structural changes to how we source
| energy, how we solve logistics and how we manage labor.
| Arguing about diet choices or duration of showers is just a
| way to keep us from tackling what really matters.
| botencat wrote:
| "I started eating [Y that has a lot of stuff in it, including
| X] -> started feeling better -> Y must be good for you"
| [deleted]
| hatsunearu wrote:
| Milk has loads of other nutrients. It's literally supposed to
| be a meal replacement for baby cows.
|
| Might be because of anything to be honest.
| [deleted]
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| This is why, even though as a programmer I'm congenitally unfit
| for it, I go outside sometimes. Sunlight also gives you vitamin
| D, and has all sorts of other benefits. As I don't go outside
| often I'm not particularly concerned about skin cancer and am
| generally skeptical of the idea that terrestrial life is
| maladapted to the Sun. I buy over exposure has bad long term
| effects, but the current view seems to be you need to wear
| sunblock for any level of exposure. That just seems wildly
| unlikely and the fact the body _needs_ sunlight to produce
| essential stuff like vitamin D further reinforces my belief
| that we are over correcting into unhealthy zones.
| xupybd wrote:
| I live in NZ. The rest of the planet doesn't live this close
| to the ozone hole. We have the highest rates of skin cancer
| in the world. We need to use sun protection at all times.
|
| https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300553551/nz-has-
| the...
| borski wrote:
| Sunblock doesn't block those beneficial benefits from
| sunlight; it blocks getting burnt, which can lead to cancer.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| You sound awfully certain of that, when some evidence
| definitely points the other way. This isn't the article I
| was looking for but it touches on it:
|
| https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-
| sun-...
| borski wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36108241
| Azure88 wrote:
| As a person not from america, the fact that this is the main
| view is worrying to me. Over here in the UK it's 100% normal
| to just use the rule of thumb that as long as you try not to
| get burnt, it's healthy to get some sun. No sunblock needed
| unless you know you'll be out in it for many hours without
| shade like if you go to the beach or a long walk.
| zeristor wrote:
| I went for a six hour walk in the rain in April and got
| sunburnt in the UK.
|
| I was surprised.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| The dermatologist cartel in the US advices zero unprotected
| sun exposure. There's evidence this is a contributor to
| high cholesterol levels in the US.
| borski wrote:
| Ah yes, the "dermatologist cartel" of untrustworthy white
| coats. _rolls eyes_
|
| Please provide sources for the evidence you speak of.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| There's a lot of doctor cartels in the US that
| emphatically force singular ideologies - babies sleeping
| on bellies die instantly, mothers who can't nurse are
| creating sickly autistic monsters, everyone must take
| statins, etc. See parallel comment for source, or visit a
| dermatologist.
| borski wrote:
| There is no cartel that says babies sleeping on their
| bellies die instantly, or that mothers who don't
| breastfeed are creating sickly autistic monsters.
| Literally not a single doctor who should be allowed to
| practice has said any of that, as it is far too extreme
| and one sided.
|
| Investigating those issues? Sure. Possibly even believing
| it's safer to sleep a baby _not_ on their belly, or that
| mothers should breastfeed if they can because it is
| likely to be healthier for the baby? Absolutely.
|
| But almost the entirety of your comment is an appeal to
| extremes, which is a logical fallacy.
| toolz wrote:
| It's really not a hard thing to google.
|
| > Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D,
| but that's OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology,
| which takes a zero-tolerance stance[1] on sun exposure:
| "You need to protect your skin from the sun every day,
| even when it's cloudy," it advises on its website. Better
| to slather on sunblock, we've all been told, and
| compensate with vitamin D pills.
|
| --
| https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-
| sun-...
|
| 1: https://www.aad.org/media/stats-vitamin-d
| myshpa wrote:
| And now show us list of their sponsors. I'll bet there
| will be several sunblock manufacturers on it.
| toolz wrote:
| I just criticized someone for not doing their own simple
| google search and now you're asking me to google for you
| as well? I'm really not sure what result you're hoping
| for here.
|
| You really shouldn't be so sure of anything you're too
| lazy to validate yourself. If you're too lazy now,
| chances are you were too lazy to validate it when you
| formed the opinion to begin with.
| borski wrote:
| Now _this_ is a lazy argument.
|
| "My thing is true, even though the vast majority of
| medical professionals and societies disagree with me. And
| I don't have to prove it to you, as that is best left as
| an exercise to the reader" is lazy, and a terrible
| argument.
|
| Even if you _didn't_ validate the established guidelines,
| that doesn't actually make you lazy; as humans, we cannot
| possibly hope to empirically validate every single thing
| we are told, as that would be madness. We often rely on
| various sources to validate claims for us by running
| solid, peer-reviewed studies and then we read those, and
| the vast majority of those studies do not agree with you,
| though more studies definitely need to be run,
| particularly with higher SPF sunblocks and mineral
| sunblocks.
| BigCryo wrote:
| [dead]
| borski wrote:
| The vast, vast majority of Google results do not support
| your claims. I'm glad you found one that did, and I'm all
| for more studies, but "it's really not that hard to
| google" is both condescending and doesn't move the
| argument forward. You are the one making an argument
| against the established widespread medical opinion; the
| onus is on you to prove your argument, not on me to prove
| your argument for you.
|
| https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-
| illne...
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/
|
| " There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases
| 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings,
| suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not
| negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have
| been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now
| widely recommended. What's already known about this
| topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that
| sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but
| use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a
| spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight.
| Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest
| that use in real life does not cause vitamin D
| deficiency. What does this study add? This study
| systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field
| trials and observational studies for the first time.
| While the experimental studies support the theoretical
| risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight
| of evidence from field trials and observational studies
| suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of
| adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun
| protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and
| widely used."
| toolz wrote:
| What exactly do you think my claims are? I'm not the one
| who made the original claim, only supported the claim
| that american dermatologists have a zero tolerance policy
| for sun exposure.
|
| Either you think there's a more representative opinion
| for American dermatologists than the AAD or what seems
| more likely is that you don't understand the argument
| that I was supporting.
| borski wrote:
| It is entirely possible we got our wires crossed.
|
| The evidence I actually wanted proof for was the original
| commenters' assertion that sunblock somehow raises
| cholesterol to unhealthy levels.
|
| The quote you chose from the article (which I did read,
| for what it's worth, but was also very light on sources)
| strongly suggested that sunblock blocks Vitamin D
| production. The science on that is unclear, but prior
| research suggests it doesn't; that said, it warrants more
| research. I took your choice of that quote specifically
| to mean that was a claim you were making. If that wasn't
| the case and you simply meant to show that the AAD
| suggested not being in the sun without sunblock, then I
| agree.
|
| The science on melanoma being very bad is pretty cut and
| dry, on the other hand.
|
| I never disagreed that American dermatologists tend to
| follow a "zero tolerance" policy for sun exposure
| _without sunblock_. They would very much like you to get
| sun _with_ sunblock, though.
| petesergeant wrote:
| The UK is much higher North than most of the US, and as a
| result the UV Index is pretty different:
|
| https://www.grida.no/resources/7130
|
| Note that it's the same as Spain in the northern-most of
| the continental US, same as Morocco in the middle, and same
| as Dubai in the south.
|
| Americans have far more need for sun-screen than Brits do
| opportune wrote:
| Even better, eat fatty fish! This may sound weird but adding
| consistent sardines/herring/mackerel/salmon to your diet can be
| life changing. They are nutrient powerhouses, they're the best
| dietary sources of both vitamin D and DHA/EPA fatty acids. Of
| course, they're also good sources of protein.
|
| Most people I've mentioned this to will say something like "but
| they're so fishy" or think that sardines are disgusting cat
| food. At least for canned sardines, what a lot of people don't
| know is that there is a wide range of quality in both the
| packing and actual fish - fishy odors are from a chemical TMAO
| that is a byproduct of decomposition and anecdotally is more
| common in the cheap brands. There are brands like Matiz and
| Nuri that have much higher quality sardines; they're also
| physically much larger than what you might think sardines are
| supposed to look like, with only 3 or so fish per tin. I also
| like this new brand Minna for a slightly cheaper option.
| mjrpes wrote:
| Did you take before/after blood tests to confirm you had low
| blood levels and that drinking milk helped? A cup of milk is
| roughly 150iu, while recommended supplements range from 600 to
| 2000iu. Also, lactose-free milk is common nowadays.
| jawerty wrote:
| Can't agree more once I started prioritizing Vitamin D in my
| diet and getting hours of sun if possible it's like a 180 with
| mental health. Eggs are a great source as well.
| m00dy wrote:
| can't really tolerate lactose, can't even digest it literally.
| Any alternatives for that ? currently living in northen-europe.
| ojosilva wrote:
| Look for lactose-free milk, typically color-coded in purple
| tones.
| limograf wrote:
| You can charge up mushrooms with vitamin D (D2) by placing
| them in direct sunlight for 30 minutes. Any ordinary
| mushrooms. So salmon (D3) and charged mushrooms would do just
| as well.
| nuxi wrote:
| If you're not vegetarian you can try cod liver oil, e.g:
|
| https://www.norwegianpharma.com/our-products/norsk-tran
|
| https://www.mollers.com/product/mollers-tran/
| [deleted]
| puttycat wrote:
| Vitamin D pills.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Vitamin D is fat soluble. The fat in milk helps your body to
| absorb it better.
| ec109685 wrote:
| You don't need much fat to absorb vitamin D and amount of fat
| you eat with the supplement doesn't really affect the level
| in your bloodstream:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23427007/
|
| " We conclude that absorption was increased when a 50,000 IU
| dose of vitamin D was taken with a low-fat meal, compared
| with a high-fat meal and no meal, but that the greater
| absorption did not result in higher plasma 25(OH)D levels in
| the low-fat meal group."
| diydsp wrote:
| That study focused on infrequent megadoses... check out
| studies like this on that give modest daily doses:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30691521/
|
| Or this meta-regression of 43 studies:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24993750/
| ec109685 wrote:
| Right, but they don't show you need a lot of fat to help
| with absorption.
| RadixDLT wrote:
| but doesn't pasteurization kill any vitamins and nutrients?
| random3 wrote:
| How would this affect the added vitamin and fat?
| xattt wrote:
| It helps the poster build a straw man argument.
| vixen99 wrote:
| A study back in 1974 reported that vit. D in milk was
| unaffected by pasteurization, boiling, or sterilization.
|
| Hartman, A. M., and L. P. Dryden. 1974. Vitamins in milk and
| milk products. Pages 325-401 in Fundamentals of Dairy
| Chemistry. 2nd ed. B. H. Webb, A. H. Johnson, and J. A.
| Alford, ed. AVI/ Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
|
| Different cooking methods for other foods can alter the D
| content but not drastically it seems.
| (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29548435/)
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| The effect of cooking on nutrients varies widely, depending
| on the specific cooking process and the nutrient in question.
|
| "Nutrients" are typically defined as proteins, carbohydrates,
| lipids (fats), vitamins, and minerals.
|
| Vitamin C is not very heat-stable, so you generally need to
| get that from raw fruits and vegetables (unless the food has
| been supplemented with it after cooking).
|
| Vitamin D, by contrast, is pretty heat-stable.
|
| Some proteins are rendered much more digestible by heat, so
| cooking actually improves the nutritional value of the food,
| in some cases by a great deal.
|
| Lipids aren't generally affected much, though again some are
| more heat-stable than others. This is why some fats and oils
| are a better choice for deep-frying.
|
| Carbohydrates are generally rendered more digestible by
| cooking, if anything (as long as they don't get so hot they
| start burning).
|
| Minerals are mostly unaffected by heat. They _can_ leach into
| the cooking water, so you 'll lose some minerals if the
| cooking water is discarded. If it's something like soup,
| where the liquid is consumed, there's little or no impact.
|
| There are even some commonly-consumed foods that are actually
| toxic unless they are cooked or otherwise processed. Cassava
| and some types of beans fall into this category.
|
| I don't want to make a blanket statement, but I'd reckon that
| overall cooking helps more than it harms. Note that cooking
| is nearly universal across human cultures. Some cultures eat
| a lot more raw foods than others, true, but even the most
| raw-loving groups generally have _some_ foods they cook (or
| otherwise process to break down, for instance, by
| fermentation).
| nkmnz wrote:
| No, it doesn't.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| of course it does. pasteurization involves rapidly heating
| and cooling the milk to kill off bacteria and viruses.
| Thats going to denature a lot of enzymes as well as change
| the structure of a lot of proteins. To say that no vitamins
| or nutrition is affected is an incredulously false to make
| here
| EdSharkey wrote:
| Vit D in milk has an interesting history. Govt added it to combat
| rickets in kids. Military needed strong bodies and bones for the
| fight.
| osigurdson wrote:
| My $0.02. Don't use sunscreen except when absolutely necessary.
| Wear and shirt/hat instead.
| jboogie77 wrote:
| lol hi melanoma!
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| lol hi neurodegenerative conditions associated with low
| sunlight exposure!
| nomel wrote:
| Which condition specifically?
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| MS and Alzheimer's, but in total:
|
| Breast cancer, colorectal cancer, hypertension,
| cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, multiple
| sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, autism, asthma, type 1
| diabetes
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/
| nomel wrote:
| > New candidate mechanisms include the release of nitric
| oxide from the skin and direct effects of ultraviolet
| radiation (UVR) on peripheral blood cells.
|
| I guess it shouldn't be surprising that there's not one
| miracle supplement. :)
|
| With skin so pasty that I can't tan, but also being the
| first adult in my family to not have skin cancer (at my
| age), now I'm not sure if I'm doing it "right" or "wrong"
| by avoiding the sun.
| [deleted]
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| What's your definition of absolutely necessary?
| tremarley wrote:
| My $0.02. Always use sunscreen & eat more Vitamin D in your
| diet
| myshpa wrote:
| My $0.02. PFAS.
| itake wrote:
| My current strategy is wear long sleeves and hats.
|
| But put sunscreen on hands and face (to fight aging and
| cancer).
|
| Then take supplements
| superbiome wrote:
| [dead]
| Eumenes wrote:
| Wonder how many ADHD and depression diagnoses could be flipped
| with sufficient vitamin D and exercise
| BossingAround wrote:
| Not that many is my guess. Most people get enough of vitamin D
| from supplements or foods that are reinforced with the vitamin.
| Exercise is pretty much the first thing you're told to try when
| diagnosed with mild depression.
| jonplackett wrote:
| [flagged]
| cyberax wrote:
| I wish someone would do an investigation of vitamin D supplements
| vs. endogenous vitamin D efficacy.
|
| I'm not at all eager to get skin cancer, and I'm also naturally
| so pale that I almost sizzle in direct summer sunlight.
| inconceivable wrote:
| you can order your own blood tests now.
| darod wrote:
| is the moral of the story that offices are killing us and that we
| need to go outside and sit in the sun for an hour of your day?
| odiroot wrote:
| So the advice to "touch grass" was actually well intentioned?
| janejeon wrote:
| I'm actually rather annoyed by the recent trend of basic
| things like "go touch grass" or "go exercise every day" or
| "eat more fiber" being scientifically validated, because it's
| stripping away any and all excuses for me not going
| outside/exercising/eating well/etc.
|
| Like damn, I knew I was supposed to do such things already,
| but it's the difference between mom saying to eat your
| veggies vs. mom slamming down a stack of scientific paper
| about why not eating veggies will literally kill you or
| whatever.
| insanitybit wrote:
| If it helps, you can just take a vitamin D supplement and
| stay inside, avoiding some major health risks like skin
| cancer and death by vehicular accidents.
| manmal wrote:
| Sunlight does way more than let the skin convert this
| specific chemical. You could look up photobiomodulation,
| for example.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I was locked in a windowless room for 10 year straight. What I
| don't know is if the long-term deprivation of vitamin D
| produces any long-term nonreversible damage. Does anyone know?
| osigurdson wrote:
| This is one thing I think is not appreciated enough about
| WFH. It can, in some cases mean work from outdoors for some
| period of time. I don't mean relaxing in the sunshine and
| pretending to work. I mean working your ass off outside and
| moving the needle for your organization.
|
| I'm sorry, Elon is waaay smarter and more capable than I am
| but he is empirically wrong about his anti WFH bias.
| Zachsa999 wrote:
| WFH what?
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| "Work from home"
| GolfPopper wrote:
| Out of curiosity, and if you don't mind sharing, what was
| your staring position?
|
| I ask, because even if they never invest a cent in your
| personal ventures, it is a very significant boost to to
| have wealthy parents who provide both broad access to
| formal and informal education, valuable networking, and a
| dependable safety net. Saying someone with those advantages
| is "more capable" when comparing them to the average First
| Worlder (let alone the average human being) is a sort of
| perceptual bias that seems unfortunately common.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I have no excuses.
| screwturner68 wrote:
| or it could mean not leaving your house for weeks at a
| time. At least when you go to the office you have to leave
| your home and go to the office and that in theory means
| time outside.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| Life produces long-term non-reversible damage, I'm afraid.
| qwertox wrote:
| But up to a certain point it's the complete opposite.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| I sincerely hope you meant that figuratively. If not, I'm
| sorry, and I hope you managed to stay relatively sane during
| those years.
| solarmist wrote:
| There are plenty of sources of vitamin D outside of sunlight.
|
| I don't know if you're playing up being a homebody or if
| something horrible happened to you.
| cube2222 wrote:
| and/or eat a lot of food rich in Vitamin D.
| bawolff wrote:
| [flagged]
| mLuby wrote:
| If my laptop screen were legible in direct sun, I'd be out
| there. Wifi and headphones.
|
| Sadly the laptop's too small and Chrome's too power-hungry for
| solar power to be an option: 1/3 m width * 1/4m length *
| 158W/m2 solar = 13W out of 67W to run it, or 19%.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I just set up on my deck with a deck umbrella and an external
| 32" monitor.
|
| It works well but it would actually be nice to have polarized
| glasses that improve the situation instead of making it
| worse.
| itake wrote:
| How do you factor in skin cancer with this mindset?
|
| While I love being outside, I always wear hats, hoods and
| jackets to protect my skin.
|
| Also cataracts would also be a problem.
| cubefox wrote:
| I wonder what stone age people did about skin cancer.
| Nothing, I assume.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| I don't think they lived long enough for it to be a
| problem.
| cubefox wrote:
| They were a lot longer outside than modern people though.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Outside != full sun.
|
| Sitting in tree shade won't give you skin cancer.
| insanitybit wrote:
| How much UVA/UVB gets filtered out from shade under a
| tree? And how much vitamin D are we getting to make
| sitting in the shade worthwhile?
| jimbokun wrote:
| Don't know about Stone Age, but look at the clothing worn
| by desert tribes. Loose fitting clothes covering arms and
| legs, so e kind of covering on the head.
|
| I think the dangers of over exposure to the sun have long
| been known and only recent generations think shorts and T
| shirts in direct sun for long amounts of time is a good
| idea.
| bawolff wrote:
| Stone age people used sunscreen. It wasn't anywhere near
| as effective as modern sunscreen. Presumably they were
| less concerned about skin cancer and more concerned about
| the immediate effects of a sunburn
| armatav wrote:
| Bro what - they did not use sunscreen - where did they
| get titanium and zinc?
| donkers wrote:
| The History of Sunscreen
|
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-
| abs...
| armatav wrote:
| Also not seeing titanium, zinc, oxybenzone, octinoxate,
| octisalate, or avobenzone.
| haldujai wrote:
| Who is defining the word "sunscreen" so narrowly to these
| compounds?
|
| All you are doing is listing modern formulations, some of
| which are not even generally regarded as safe anymore.
| armatav wrote:
| Point being that ancients did not use sunscreen or
| anything remotely close to the formulae we have today -
| what we have today was roughly defined 100 years ago and
| has some serious consequential effects on the endocrine
| system and more.
| haldujai wrote:
| > Point being that ancients did not use sunscreen
|
| The statement being made by others is that "ancients"
| applied a topical substance to protect their skin from
| harmful effects of the sun, most would call that
| sunscreen[0] but use whatever word you prefer.
|
| > anything remotely close to the formulae we have today
|
| No one is making this claim.
|
| [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/s
| unscree...
| klocksib wrote:
| https://www.heifer.org/blog/sun-protection-through-the-
| ages-...
| armatav wrote:
| Not seeing titanium, zinc, oxybenzone, octinoxate,
| octisalate, or avobenzone.
|
| That's not our sunscreen.
| morsch wrote:
| Skin cancer is one of the more relatively common cancers
| in young people, but first diagnosis still increases
| sharply with age. Life expectancy at age 15 (so, without
| the 60% infant/child mortality) in the Paleolithic was
| apparently 54 years.
|
| https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-
| professional/cancer-...
|
| Ihttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Cancer is a bigger problem now because we have learned
| how to deal with other diseases.
| wwtrv wrote:
| Well yeah.. just like wild animals which break a leg,
| catch a serious diseases etc. they can't do anything
| about it and die.
| screwturner68 wrote:
| they were dead by 40, skin cancer usually takes a little
| longer to show up and kill you.
| itake wrote:
| How long did Stone Age people live? I thought most people
| died at like 40? I'm planning on living longer than that.
| bowmessage wrote:
| I feel like this is a VR headset's killer app - once the DPI
| gets there, it will let me bask in the sun while still being
| productive. I can't wait.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| 30 minutes in the sun is enough to get your daily dose iirc.
|
| I think I get 30 minutes from going outside for lunch and
| walking to my car, driving, taking out the trash, getting my
| mail, etc.
| jessicas_rabbit wrote:
| In order to produce vitamin D, your skin needs continuous
| time in the sun to fully react with sunlight.
|
| 30 minutes of continuous chemical reaction will have vastly
| different effect than a reaction that stops & starts
| repeatedly, for a sum total of 30 minutes.
| cyberax wrote:
| You actually are going to synthesize _more_ vitamin D if
| you do fractionated exposure.
|
| That's because vitamin D synthesis is an equilibrium
| reaction, UV drives backward and forward reactions. So
| you'll get more vitamin D if you expose your skin to the
| sun for a few minutes, then let the synthesized vitamin to
| diffuse out of the skin layer, and then expose yourself
| again.
| jessicas_rabbit wrote:
| That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
| basisword wrote:
| I'm not sure how correct that is. Particularly in certain
| countries and especially in winter. I get out for more than
| 30mins every day and my levels are deficient when I tested.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Copenhagen in the winter will have you sit outside all day.
| All 6 hours of it.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| it varies greatly person to person.
| itake wrote:
| +1. I was deficient, despite averaging 7000 steps per day
| (80 min of walking). I also live in seattle and stay
| bundled up
| bqmjjx0kac wrote:
| It also depends on your skin color and latitude.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Or, install some full-spectrum daylight-mimicing LED lights.
| These are not that easy to find, you want to use the CCT and
| CRI ratings to match sunlight as closely as possible.
|
| https://www.uvm.edu/news/extension/tips-choosing-grow-lights
|
| They're kind of hard to find, the optimal values are 6500K for
| CCT and as close to 100 as possible for CRI, which matches the
| peak value and the overall spectrum of natural sunlight. One
| option appears to be the NorthLux(tm) 95 CRI T8 LED Tube (kind
| of pricy though, and will need a specialized ballast fixture,
| also a bit pricy).
| cyberax wrote:
| Vitamin D needs UV, not just light.
|
| You _can_ install UV diodes, but then you have a whole
| another can of worms. A point source of UV can damage eyes
| much more easily, and if you forget to turn it off, you can
| expect a nasty sunburn.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| No but you should go out a couple of times a week for a walk
| and get some sun. the body is amazingly good at manufacturing
| vitamin d in a short amount of time especially with full
| sunlight. You don't have to get skin cancer though.
| rocket_surgeron wrote:
| Being outdoors is almost always better than being indoors and
| people do need to get out more but that's not the solution to a
| problem brought about by bodies being adapted to sub-Saharan
| latitudes but living north or south of the 37th parallel.
|
| https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more...
|
| An hour a day buck-ass naked, isn't enough if you don't live
| along the equator.
|
| For many northern and southern latitudes where many people live
| if you affixed yourself to a rotating pole and rotisserie'd
| yourself from sunrise to sunset while naked every day, then for
| 4-9 months out of the year you would be D deficient.
|
| I'm outdoors more than most and if I don't supplement my levels
| fall into the mid-20s ng/mL, below the standard range of
| 30-100.
|
| And no matter how many millions of studies repeat verbatim the
| importance of vitamin d people still neglect it.
| gadflyinyoureye wrote:
| 30 minutes with large skin contact. Take off your shirt or have
| a tank top.
| gtirloni wrote:
| That's enough for skin cancer where I live. 5min tops.
| ycombinete wrote:
| I guess that depends on time of day, and ozone health, I
| assume you live in Australia?
|
| I live in the Middle East and the uv index in the am
| (before 9am) in direct sunlight isn't that crazy.
| smilespray wrote:
| It's enough for frostbite where I live.
| siftrics wrote:
| Not trying to argue; just chipping in:
|
| I regularly sit outside with my shirt off in ~20F weather
| and don't get cold enough to have to go inside.
|
| Direct sunlight makes all the difference. With the sun,
| sub freezing air temperatures can actually leave you
| feeling quite warm.
| panxyh wrote:
| It's enough for mosquitoes where I live.
| tempfortwitt90 wrote:
| I know several women that go outside and take walks for their
| vitamin d, but slather on sunscreen which blocks the process.
| No matter how many times I tell them it's a worthy trade-off,
| they won't go outside without.
|
| I'm 38, and have never worn sunscreen outside of going to the
| beach for a whole day. I often get compliments from women about
| my face, and they're shocked to hear I never wear sunscreen or
| moisturize. It's almost like not putting chemicals on your face
| is good for you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-28 23:01 UTC)