206 replies to this topic

[Shepard]

Any recommendations on what I should try next Shepard?

If you liked GVT, you might enjoy using some of Staley's EDT ideas. The book on it is Muscle Logic, but isn't really required. Take two movements, a block of time, and try to increase density each workout. He has a "50 in 20" article somewhere, too. Although, he's written some really stupid stuff like most other guys.

I also really like Dan John's One-Lift-A-Day program. Truthfully, I like every program Dan John has suggested. Also a big fan of Rippetoe's stuff. But, his stuff is mostly targeted to beginners (or those coming from a lay-off).

Anyway, both EDT and OLAD seem to be good things to add in every once in a while to spice back up training and add in some variety. Generally, I hover around lift heavy stuff and do some GPP work.

Have you checked out some of the stuff Mark Twight has come up with? www.gymjones.com You might appreciate some of his writings and the basic template those guys follow. Kind of like Crossfit, but it's much easier to take them seriously.

[zoolander]

I 'll check those out. I'll be in contact Jeremy after I complete the next round of GVT in about 10-12 weeks.

Thanks for that info matey

[ajnast4r]

GVT looks fun.. i think im gonna try it. my workouts have become a little blah lately

[zoolander]

well your workouts are going to go from Blah to fucking WAAAAHHH!

Every person I've put on the GVT program say that the gains in just over 2 months are more than they've gained in the last 2 years

[zoolander]

I added my oral/nasal hygyeine plus haircare regime into plan

[Centurion]

I like the kurzweil approach of grouping them into wee bags. Nice. Seems like a very time (and money) consuming regime!
I don't take anything, not even a multivitamin, I should probably look into that...

[zoolander]

LOL

I was browsing around and I found a label I made up for my morning mix protein. Bloody hell I'm such a geek

[TianZi]

Pretty comprehensive regimen.

1. I'd recommend not taking the quercetine with the resveratrol, as that amount of quercetine is likely to block any chance for the resveratrol to stimulate SIRT1 activity in the limited time it is bioavailable in the body. I also think your daily dose of resveratrol is far too little to stimulate this effect anyway.

2. You should try to get 30 minutes or so unprotected exposure without burning to the sun daily. Your vitamin D3 supplement simply won't boost D3 levels as effectively (or perhaps as safely--recent studies have linked exogenous Vitamin D supplementation with formation of calcium deposits on the brain and other internal organs). Mortality and incidence rates for most internal cancers, osteporosis etc. skyrocket with decreased sun exposure; this is now inarguable.

Use the sunblock on your face if you feel compelled to do so, but leave it off the rest of your body, unless you are going to be exposed long enough to burn.

3. Frankly, you have too little muscle mass to benefit much from the German volume training approach. It typically benefits only those who have already developed considerable strength and added muscle mass through long-term strength conditioning. It's likely that for you, less will be more, for the time being.

[zoolander]

Thanks for your advice TianZi.

1. I am a bit disillusioned by the whole resveratrol scenario to be honest. It's one area that I haven't bothered keeping up to date with. I think the fanaticism of it all turned me off it a bit. At the moment I probably more interested in the grape and red wine in the Nature's way Supplement I take. the resveratrol is secondary

2. I am a bit on the sun paranoid side. I probably get sun through my clothing though but I wear 55+ SPF on my face and hands. My head is clippered short at the moment so I most likely get a bit of sun through my helmet when I ride

3. I disagree. A few months back when I went through the full GVT I really blew out. I'll see how I go this time round.

[Shepard]

3. Frankly, you have too little muscle mass to benefit much from the German volume training approach. It typically benefits only those who have already developed considerable strength and added muscle mass through long-term strength conditioning. It's likely that for you, less will be more, for the time being.

According to whom? By its nature, GVT is aimed at sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. So, why would it matter?

[TianZi]

3. Frankly, you have too little muscle mass to benefit much from the German volume training approach. It typically benefits only those who have already developed considerable strength and added muscle mass through long-term strength conditioning. It's likely that for you, less will be more, for the time being.

According to whom? By its nature, GVT is aimed at sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. So, why would it matter?

Have you read any of the NSCA position papers on strength conditioning?

Edited by TianZi, 23 April 2008 - 02:01 PM.

[Shepard]

Have you read any of the NSCA position papers on strength conditioning?

Cool, just making sure we were on the same page.

[TianZi]

Have you read any of the NSCA position papers on strength conditioning?

Cool, just making sure we were on the same page.

I agree with you that GVT is an excellent way for SOME people to achieve hypertrophy at an optimal rate. 10 reps, 1 minute rest, multiple sets. That's the recipe for hypertrophy (as opposed to some other goal, such as training primarily for muscular endurance, strength or power). But GVT, done properly, takes this recipe to an extreme.

To my knoweledge, the studies done (principally in Europe?) showing GVT's benefits used exclusively as their test subjects highly trained athletes, or at least persons with very advanced levels of strength conditioning. GVT isn't your typical strength training regimen, and it is likely only optimal for persons with very advanced levels of strength conditioning. From Zoolander's self-description, he doesn't sound as though he fits that profile.

As pointed out by the NSCA and other similar organizations, there is no "one-size-fits-all" strength training regimen. Do too much in relation to your current level of strength conditioning, and you not only are more prone to injury, but are likely to achieve less in terms of strength / hypertrophy gains than if you'd done less.

Zoolander is slender in terms of body weight for his height, especially if he has been pursuing a training regimen geared toward adding pounds of lean muscle mass. Although he may still makes gains pursuing a GVT regimen, perhaps he'd be best served for the time being by a more modest regimen appropriate to his current level of strength conditioning, which is likely intermediate. There are several NSCA summary position papers that describe nicely typical ideal regimens for different levels of strength conditioning. I can link them if any of you are interested.

I felt somewhat compelled to say this because I encouraged a friend of mine over the past 6 months to pursue the same very high intensity, 3-4 hour per session, 6 day a week strength / cardio training schedule that I'd been keeping, and we worked out together as training partners until recently. It was more than double what he had been doing for the prior year. My friend and I are the same height--he is a semi-professional rugby player-- and roughly same body fat percentage (less than 10%), with the exception that I have an extra 30 pounds of muscle he doesn't (he's 5"9" and 150, I'm the same height and about 183). He ended up exhausted not only after each session but the next day as well, and in increasing amounts of pain. Over months, this led to repeated serious injuries, which in turn led to a net loss of muscle after 6 months for him. During this same period, I did more than he did, and continued making impressive gains without pause. "One size" does not fit all. And GVT is definitely not appropriate for everyone.

Edited by TianZi, 23 April 2008 - 05:35 PM.

[Shepard]

"One size" does not fit all. And GVT is definitely not appropriate for everyone.

Exactly. That nails my problem with applying general guidelines to individual trainees. Zoolander is fully aware of what he is doing, and there is no real reason GVT-type training wouldn't work in any person provided conditioning and lactate clearance are high enough to deal with it.

Edited by shepard, 23 April 2008 - 10:13 PM.
Man, I can't type.

[krillin]

2. You should try to get 30 minutes or so unprotected exposure without burning to the sun daily. Your vitamin D3 supplement simply won't boost D3 levels as effectively (or perhaps as safely--recent studies have linked exogenous Vitamin D supplementation with formation of calcium deposits on the brain and other internal organs). Mortality and incidence rates for most internal cancers, osteporosis etc. skyrocket with decreased sun exposure; this is now inarguable.

2400 IU would be too much for me. Vitamin D supplementation needs to be calibrated with blood testing.

Why would D supplementation be any more dangerous than getting sun, assuming that blood levels are kept in the optimal range?

[zoolander]

re. point 2

2. You should try to get 30 minutes or so unprotected exposure without burning to the sun daily. Your vitamin D3 supplement simply won't boost D3 levels as effectively (or perhaps as safely--recent studies have linked exogenous Vitamin D supplementation with formation of calcium deposits on the brain and other internal organs). Mortality and incidence rates for most internal cancers, osteporosis etc. skyrocket with decreased sun exposure; this is now inarguable.

the safe tolerable upper limit for vitamin D in healthy adults is 10,000IU(1)

I'm currently taking 5,600IU per day

[Zans Mihejevs]

-I cycle all of my supplements. I take them 5 days on 2 days off. Then I have a 7 days break every 3 months.

Interesting. Do you observe any variations in health during the days that you don't take any supplements?

[zoolander]

The following is a work in progress.....

I've been reviewing my regime and have decided to add references in beside some of my choices. These references will, for the most part, be human studies.

I'm also adding a description of the compound eg. AChE Inhibitor or Antioxidant

I have also added a strike through some of the supplements with little research. These supplements may be discontinued.

My goal is to tighten my regime based on the effectiveness of the various supplements/meds as demonstrated in human/animal in vivo studies. I am also trying to make the regime user friendly so that members can follow up with their own research by reading some of the references

[TianZi]

2. You should try to get 30 minutes or so unprotected exposure without burning to the sun daily. Your vitamin D3 supplement simply won't boost D3 levels as effectively (or perhaps as safely--recent studies have linked exogenous Vitamin D supplementation with formation of calcium deposits on the brain and other internal organs). Mortality and incidence rates for most internal cancers, osteporosis etc. skyrocket with decreased sun exposure; this is now inarguable.

2400 IU would be too much for me. Vitamin D supplementation needs to be calibrated with blood testing.

Why would D supplementation be any more dangerous than getting sun, assuming that blood levels are kept in the optimal range?

A recent high profile study found a "strong association" between consumption of supplemental Vitamin D and calcium and the formation of dangerous brain lesions, even after accounting for all other mitigating factors.

Here's one article I quickly found discussing the study; I originally read about it elsewhere:

http://www.medicinen...rticlekey=80821

That's not to say there aren't benefits from exogenous supplementation of vitamin D that outweigh these risks, but they should be recognized, and consideration should be given to obtaining vitamin D to the extent possible through unprotected sun exposure (without burning).

The issue of whether Vitamin D supplementation without sun exposure is sufficient to ensure optimal vitamin D levels in the body is important to me personally, as my mother, who is 58 and a history professor at Loyola University in Baltimore MD, was diagnosed this year with a very advanced form of osteoporosis, a diagnosis she sought only after her shoulder broke this January while performing a simple movement in her ballroom dancing class. Vitamin D levels in her blood were found to be dangerously low, and her doctor prescribed several thousand IU of vitamin D daily as a supplement. However, my 105 lb mother had been taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D as a supplement for over 20 years, and enjoys dairy products as part of her normal diet on top of that.

What she hadn't been doing was getting ANY unprotected sun exposure during that period of time; although she had enjoyed sunbathing in her twenties, she kept up on current research at that time and concluded any unprotected sun exposure would accelerate aging of her skin and increase risk of skin cancer, without any benefits that couldn't be duplicated by taking supplemental vitamin D. I pleaded with her to reconsider starting in about 2004 as I started reading more and more studies conducted in low light countries and elsewhere (more recently, in the US too) finding a very high correlation between lack of sun exposure and greatly increased rates of incidence and mortality for most forms of internal cancers, as well as greatly increased rates for other diseases such as osteoporosis. My mother dismissed these concerns as "ridiculous." I wish she had listened to me then--she is now.

Edited by TianZi, 26 April 2008 - 07:06 AM.

[TianZi]

re. point 2

2. You should try to get 30 minutes or so unprotected exposure without burning to the sun daily. Your vitamin D3 supplement simply won't boost D3 levels as effectively (or perhaps as safely--recent studies have linked exogenous Vitamin D supplementation with formation of calcium deposits on the brain and other internal organs). Mortality and incidence rates for most internal cancers, osteporosis etc. skyrocket with decreased sun exposure; this is now inarguable.

the safe tolerable upper limit for vitamin D in healthy adults is 10,000IU(1)

I'm currently taking 5,600IU per day

Vitamin D3 generated by the body as a result of sun exposure is self-regulating; after generation of D3 is triggered, it cuts off at a certain threshold. It is therefore apparently not possible to exceed a safe threshold of vitamin D through sun exposure alone. Exogenous supplementation of vitamin D does not self-regulate in this way, and it doesn't seem to be used by the body with anywhere near the efficiency of self-generated D3.

One more thing: sunlight needs to be of a certain "intensity", and unprotected sun exposure of sufficient duration, to trigger vitamin d3 generation. The magic number is something like 15-20 minutes for caucasians with an average skin melanin content, at a certain distance from the equator, on a clear day, at certain times of the day and times of the year. This is easier to achieve the closer you are to the equator, and more difficult the further you get away from it.

[zoolander]

TianZi, just for the record I am pale skin and blue eyed. Not the best for the sun. I also live in Australia. Also not the best for the sun. In short, I stay out of the sun, unprotected.

[krillin]

A recent high profile study found a "strong association" between consumption of supplemental Vitamin D and calcium and the formation of dangerous brain lesions, even after accounting for all other mitigating factors.

Here's one article I quickly found discussing the study; I originally read about it elsewhere:

http://www.medicinen...rticlekey=80821

That's not to say there aren't benefits from exogenous supplementation of vitamin D that outweigh these risks, but they should be recognized, and consideration should be given to obtaining vitamin D to the extent possible through unprotected sun exposure (without burning).

That doesn't prove that supplemental vitamin D is any more dangerous than solar vitamin D, only that it is dangerous if taken without blood testing. (An optimal vitamin D level might also be dangerous without vitamin K2 to prevent vascular calcification.)

According to Dr. William Davis, who has a lot of experience with raising vitamin D levels, softgel D3 is very effective. D2 and any form of tableted D is rather useless. This may explain your mother's experience.

It is possible to get too much vitamin D from sun and it's harder to calibrate than supplements, so I avoid it.

Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;17(6):567-71.
Comment in: Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18(5):461-2.
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels are elevated in South Indian patients with ischemic heart disease.
Rajasree S, Rajpal K, Kartha CC, Sarma PS, Kutty VR, Iyer CS, Girija G.
Department of Cardiology and Achutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, India.

Several lines of evidence point to a possible relationship between vitamin D and cardiovascular disease. Animal experiments and observational studies in humans suggest vitamin D to be arteriotoxic and an association of high intake of vitamin D with increased incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD). The major source of vitamin D in adults is vitamin D synthesized in the skin through exposure to the sun. In tropical environment there is a possibility of high level of solar exposure and enhanced serum levels of vitamin D in the population. We explored the relation between serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and IHD in a case-control study involving 143 patients with either angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease or patients with acute myocardial infarction and 70 controls, all men in the age group of 45-65 years. Fasting blood samples were collected, serum separated and serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 was measured by protein binding radioligand assay. Serum levels of cholesterol, triglyceride, calcium, magnesium and inorganic phosphate were also determined. Prevalences of diabetes, hypertension and smoking history were noted. Statistical comparisons of variables between cases and controls were done using chi2-tests. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to examine the association of IHD with serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 controlling for selected variables. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, calcium, inorganic phosphate, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein and triglycerides were elevated in a higher proportion of patients, compared to controls. Serum levels of 25-OH-D3 above 222.5 nmol/l (89 ng/ml) was observed in 59.4% of cases compared to 22.1% in controls (p < 0.001; unadjusted odds ratio (OR): 5.17; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.62-10.21). When controlled for age and selected variables using the multivariate logistic regression, the adjusted OR relating elevated serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels (> or = 222.5 nmol/l, > or = 89 ng/ml) and IHD is 3.18 (95% CI: 1.31-7.73). Given the evidences for the arteriotoxicity of vitamin D, further investigations are warranted to probe whether the elevated serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 observed in patients with IHD in a tropical environment has any pathogenic significance.

PMID: 11949730

[TianZi]

"It is possible to get too much vitamin D from sun and it's harder to calibrate than supplements, so I avoid it."

That's probably wrong. Again, vitamin d3 production triggered by sun exposure self-regulates--this means no more is produced once a certain level is achieved, regardless of how long you are in the sun. And the equilibrium level--10,000 IU per day--has been shown to be safe in many studies (at least if generated endogenously).

Let's start with the Wiki stub:

"Vitamin D₂ is derived from fungal and plant sources, and is not produced by the human body. Vitamin D₃ is derived from animal sources and is made in the skin when 7-dehydrocholesterol reacts with UVB ultraviolet light at wavelengths between 270–300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295-297 nm.^[4][5] These wavelengths are present in sunlight at sea level when the sun is more than 45° above the horizon, or when the UV index is greater than 3.^[6] At this solar elevation, which occurs daily within the tropics, daily during the spring and summer seasons in temperate regions, and almost never within the arctic circles, adequate amounts of vitamin D₃ can be made in the skin only after ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen. With longer exposure to UVB rays, an equilibrium is achieved in the skin, and the vitamin simply degrades as fast as it is generated.<sup>[1]"

...</sup>

Exposure to sunlight for extended periods of time does not cause vitamin D toxicity.^[34] This is because within about 20 minutes of ultraviolet exposure in light skinned individuals (3–6 times longer for pigmented skin) the concentration of vitamin D precursors produced in the skin reach an equilibrium, and any further vitamin D that is produced is degraded.^[35] Maximum endogenous production with full body exposure to sunlight is 250 µg (10,000 IU) per day.[34]"


Footnotes 34 & 35 of the Wiki stub lead to studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1995 & 1999; I checked, and the conclusions therein do indeed precisely track the Wiki stub:

"Ultraviolet exposure beyond the minimal erythemal dose does not increase vitamin D production further. The ultraviolet-induced production of vitamin D precursors is counterbalanced by degradation of vitamin D and its precursors. The concentration of previtamin D in the skin reaches an equilibrium in white skin within 20 min of ultraviolet exposure (41). Although it can take 3–6 times longer for pigmented skin to reach the equilibrium concentration of dermal previtamin D, skin pigmentation does not affect the amount of vitamin D that can be obtained through sunshine exposure (42)''

Copied from the full text of the 1999 study (Footnote 34), with additional citations to other supporting studies.

As regards this issue, the US National Institute of Health's Vitamin D Fact Sheet cites approvingly a 2001 study that itself relied on said 1995 and 1999 studies concluding that it isn't possible to achieve toxic levels of vitamin D through sun exposure.

As far as that South India study goes, its results seem pretty isolated. It is mentioned in the Wiki stub in the section dealing with Vitamin D's role in the prevention of coronary disease. I don't think those results have been duplicated elsewhere, and I don't think any other study has even suggested an increased risk of coronary disease due to sun exposure. To the contrary, other studies in the UK, etc. have shown decreasing levels of risk for heart disease as sun exposure increases, and a Harvard study found that risk of cardiovascular disease increased in vitamin D deficient people. All things considered, I find these other studies more predictive and reliable, and the South India study an anomaly with results that may be better explained by factors unique to that narrow population group extrinsic to length of sun exposure.

Edited by TianZi, 27 April 2008 - 05:42 AM.

[zoolander]

Thank you for all the feedback. I really appreciate the open discussion. It has helped me tweak my regime.

so, after doing a little more reading I've decided to drop my D3 intake from 5600IU to 2400IU/day. I will also be getting some blood biochemistry done in the next week or two considering that I've been dosing at above the NOEL for hypercalceamia is 95ug/day or just 4000IU, in normal adults

Ann Clin Biochem. 2008 Jan;45(Pt 1):106-10.Links
Self-prescribed high-dose vitamin D3: effects on biochemical parameters in two men.
Kimball S, Vieth R.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. samantha.kimball@utoronto.ca

The lowest observed adverse effect level for vitamin D, said to cause hypercalcaemia in normal adults, is officially 95 microg/day. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations associated with hypervitaminosis D remain undefined. Reported 25(OH)D concentrations resulting from prolonged excessive vitamin D3 intakes have exceeded 700 nmol/L. We report self-prescribed high dose of vitamin D3 over 5-6 years by two men. Subject 1 had been taking 100 microg/day for 3 years followed by 3 years of 200 microg/day. Serum 25(OH)D concentrations averaged 130 nmol/L while taking 100 microg/day of vitamin D3. While taking 200 microg/day of vitamin D3, mean serum 25(OH)D concentrations were 260 nmol/L with no hypercalcaemia or hypercalcuria over the 6 years of vitamin D3 intake. Subject 2 was a 39-year-old man diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He initiated his own dose-escalation schedule. His vitamin D3 intake increased from 200 to 2200 microg/day over 4 years. The first evidence of a potential adverse effect was that urinary calcium:creatinine ratios showed an increasing trend, which preceded serum calcium concentrations above the reference range (2.2-2.6 mmol/L). His serum 25(OH)D concentration was 1126 nmol/L when total serum calcium reached 2.63 mmol/L. He stopped vitamin D3 supplementation at this point. Two months later, all biochemistry values were within reference ranges; serum 25(OH)D concentrations fell by about one-half, to 656 nmol/L. These results help to clarify the human response to higher intakes of vitamin D3. Close monitoring of biochemical responses confirmed that an increase in urinary calcium:creatinine ratio precedes hypercalcaemia as serum 25(OH)D concentrations rise.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.Click here to read Links

Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed adverse effect level.
Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.

Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. rvieth@mtsinai.on.ca

BACKGROUND: The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences states that 95 microg vitamin D/d is the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of prolonged vitamin D3 intakes of 25 and 100 microg (1000 and 4000 IU)/d. Efficacy was based on the lowest serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration achieved by subjects taking vitamin D3; potential toxicity was monitored by measuring serum calcium concentrations and by calculating urinary calcium-creatinine ratios. DESIGN: Healthy men and women (n = 61) aged 41 +/- 9 y (mean +/- SD) were randomly assigned to receive either 25 or 100 microg vitamin D3/d for 2-5 mo, starting between January and February. Serum 25(OH)D was measured by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS: Baseline serum 25(OH)D was 40.7 +/- 15.4 nmol/L (mean +/- SD). From 3 mo on, serum 25(OH)D plateaued at 68.7 +/- 16.9 nmol/L in the 25-microg/d group and at 96.4 +/- 14.6 nmol/L in the 100-microg/d group. Summertime serum 25(OH)D concentrations in 25 comparable subjects not taking vitamin D3 were 46.7 +/- 17.8 nmol/L. The minimum and maximum plateau serum 25(OH)D concentrations in subjects taking 25 and 100 microg vitamin D3/d were 40 and 100 nmol/L and 69 and 125 nmol/L, respectively. Serum calcium and urinary calcium excretion did not change significantly at either dosage during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The 100-microg/d dosage of vitamin D3 effectively increased 25(OH)D to high-normal concentrations in practically all adults and serum 25(OH)D remained within the physiologic range; therefore, we consider 100 microg vitamin D3/d to be a safe intake.

Edited by zoolander, 27 April 2008 - 05:36 AM.

[TianZi]

Zoolander,

The 2001 study mentioned in my last post is the same 2001 study by Vieth, et al included in your post above.

I'm going to make a final argument regarding whether the equilibrium threshold for endogenous production of vitamin d3 exceeds safe levels. It's a "common sense" argument, and goes like this:

For the entirety of mankind's history prior to the 20th century, the vast majority of the population worked outside daily for long hours. In light of this, is it more or less likely that as an evolutionary mechanism, the equilibrium level of endogenous vitamin D3 production, achieved in less than an hour, would be a level that tends to increase the human lifespan? It's a rhetorical question, isn't it.

Edited by TianZi, 27 April 2008 - 05:59 AM.

[zoolander]

For the entirety of mankind's history prior to the 20th century, the vast majority of the population worked outside daily for long hours. In light of this, is it more or less likely that as an evolutionary mechanism, the equilibrium level of endogenous vitamin D3 production, achieved in less than an hour, would be a level that tends to increase the human lifespan? It's a rhetorical question, isn't it.

Yes and that's a fair assumption however the ozone layer is not what it use to be and therefore protection from the sun's damaging ultra-violet rays has changed. One hour in the sun today is not like one hour in the sun 150-200 years ago. Especially for this pale skinned Aussie. I'd get sun burnt if I went into a solarium.

Edited by zoolander, 27 April 2008 - 10:02 AM.

[TianZi]

For the entirety of mankind's history prior to the 20th century, the vast majority of the population worked outside daily for long hours. In light of this, is it more or less likely that as an evolutionary mechanism, the equilibrium level of endogenous vitamin D3 production, achieved in less than an hour, would be a level that tends to increase the human lifespan? It's a rhetorical question, isn't it.

Yes and that's a fair assumption however the zone layer is not what it use to be and therefore protection from the sun's damaging ultra-violet rays has changed. One hour in the sun today is not like one hour in the sun 150-200 years ago. Especially for this pale skinned Aussie. I'd get sun burnt if I went into a solarium.

Well, burning definitely isn't good for you, and it sounds like you edge toward an albino complexion.

I'm a caucasian living in Taipei, Taiwan (subtropical, almost tropical clime) and it takes over an hour on a bright day for me to approach a burn ( I have a base tan), which I avoid doing (I apply sunblock prior to reaching that point). But if you can't be exposed unprotected to bright sunlight for more than a couple of minutes without burning, exogenous vitamin D supplementation seems the only option to ensure adequate levels of vitamin D.

[krillin]

"It is possible to get too much vitamin D from sun and it's harder to calibrate than supplements, so I avoid it."

That's probably wrong.

It's absolutely correct, unless you want to argue that those Indians were popping high-dose vitamin D pills.

Again, vitamin d3 production triggered by sun exposure self-regulates--this means no more is produced once a certain level is achieved, regardless of how long you are in the sun. And the equilibrium level--10,000 IU per day--has been shown to be safe in many studies (at least if generated endogenously).

You have to deliberately ignore lots of data to come to that conclusion. 10,000 IU is not safe for everyone. (And it is highly irrational to suggest that there is a difference between supplemental D3 and endogenous D3. It's the exact same molecule.) Just 1000 IU brings me to 45.1 ng/ml: smack-dab in the middle of the optimal range. 10,000 IU would put me well into in the toxic range. Read on about the experiences of others.

http://sunlightandvi...Sample Chapters

In December of 2001 a client being medically treated for psoriasis with a special narrowband UV-B light prescribed by his dermatologist tested 25(OH)D at 97 ng/ml. The light treatment was immediately stopped by the choice of the client, not the dermatologist. The client then left for his yearly trip to Hawaii staying three months from Jan-March of 2002. He did not intentionally avoid the sun, believing, as I did at the time, hypervitaminosis D from natural sunlight was impossible. He ate local Hawaiian foods, including eggs and fish. On his return to northern California his 25(OH)D had risen to 127 ng/ml.

A woman with severe osteoporosis, demonstrating a lumbar SD -4.6 and low 25(OH)D began taking D3, cholecalciferol, 3,000 IU a day. Her serum 25(OH)D rose from below 20 ng/ml to 42 ng/ml within 4 months and a follow up bone scan after 8 months of D supplementation showed some not significant (very slight) bone gain had occurred. The client did not want the expense of testing, it was not supported by her physician or HMO, so did not test D again. She continued to take the original 3,000 IU of D about five days a week. This dose is slightly lower than the dose of 4,000 IU sometimes suggested or used by some D researchers and clinicians. She also took between 1,000-1,500 mg calcium in addition to food sources and did not avoid foods containing D. The next bone scan, about 1 year after the scan showing a slight gain and 2 years after starting vitamin D, showed normal PTH (43 ng/ml); 25(OH)D 95 ng/ml; and lumbar SD -4.8 in addition to more loss in the femur for SD -2.2 to -2.5. Overall she experienced a 6% loss of bone density.

It's unfathomable to me why you cling to your discredited ideas. Supplementation coupled with blood testing is cheap, safe, effective, and convenient. Sunbathing is time-consuming, unreliable, and introduces unnecessary risks.

[TianZi]

You've got it exactly backwards: What's been discredited is the idea that limited unprotected sun exposure isn't an optimal form of vitamin D supplementation. Even the National Institute of Health, an organization that's quite conservative, now recommends responsible, limited unprotected sun exposure as a form of vitamin D supplementation, a very recent change in position.

Per the NIH, "Most people meet their vitamin D needs through exposure to sunlight", and it quotes approvingly the conclusion of a recent study that "approximately 5-30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis". According to the NIH, only individuals with limited sun exposure should ingest supplemental quantities of vitamin D. Further per the NIH, it is likely not possible to obtain too much vitamin D through sun exposure.

As regards the South India study, cite any other performed anywhere else in the world that came to the same conclusion.

If you think anecdotal accounts on a random website carry the same weight as studies published in journals, let me point you toward some other random websites with anecdotal acounts of alien abductions and health problems resulting therefrom. At least one crucial "fact" stated on said random website was completely wrong:

"The body does not have an effective feedback mechanism to stop production or absorption of vitamin D either in the skin or from oral intake."

As anyone who's taken the time to read published studies on this subject should know, endogenous production of vitamin D is rigidly controlled so that vitamin D3 levels in the body produced endogenously don't exceed an equilibirum threshold, described in more particularity in prior posts and the cited studies. It is vitamin D levels in the body resulting from exogenous supplementation that aren't subject to a control mechanism. This glaring error, apparent even to a laymen such as myself, doesn't bode well for the reliability of anything else on that website, with the author's sole claimed credential being that he is a "clinical nutritionist."

UVB light therapy is currently used as a primary form of vitamin D supplementation in Sweden, which has led research in this area for some time. As evidenced by studies cited in this very thread, there may very well be significant differences between endogenous and exogenous supplementation of vitamin D3, besides an internal control mechanism for one and not the other, for reasons we don't yet fully understand.

Edited by TianZi, 28 April 2008 - 06:57 AM.

[TianZi]

[typo correction in my above post: "layman", not "laymen"--I hate typos, particularly my own]

Dear Zoolander,

In hindsight, I realize I've probably said too much in your personal regimen thread concerning the benefits of sun exposure as an alternative form of vitamin D supplementation.

My apologies; sorry for derailing the thread.

To provide K., and others, an opportunity to continuing debating this issue without any further hijacking of your thread, I'm creating a new thread for additional posts on this particular topic.

Edited by TianZi, 28 April 2008 - 08:49 AM.