Pretty good news! But also I think this study tells us that people are infact staying in doors more then they should! Our levels of vitamin D are likely really low in general otherwise we wouldn't see that much of a diference.
I bet the supplement industry is going to be splashing this study all over the internet for the next few months.
I don't see how being in the sun could be bad for us. We've been doing it for as long as we've existed and every other form of life does it as well. Anecdotally, I feel amazing when I'm sunbathing and I feel terrible during winter when there's less sun. The only explanation I can come up with is that modern people are somehow uniquely sick so their bodies can't do what every other organism has done for billions of years.
That's been my conclusion recently. While I'm sure it's true that people aren't getting enough vitamin D because they are indoors a lot, I'm not convinced you can't easily get enough of it in supplement form. If UV is only needed for vitamin D then you might as well avoid the aging effects of UV exposure and pop a pill.
I don't think we know the entirety of what happens in the skin with UV exposure. We are pretty sure that vitamin D is good, and that cancer is bad, and that seems to be all that people talk about, but there are a lot more things happening that we don't fully understand.
I suspect when we know more, the best answer is going to be moderation. But it's really anybody's guess right now.
There are even things that we do know about but generally aren't talked about such as UV-triggered nitric oxide release[1] which moderates blood pressure among other positive effects.
I want to be clear that there being pros and cons whose relative proportions change is very different than what some other commenters seem to be implying which is closer to a threshold model of UV safety which clearly doesn't exist and is non-scientific.
Uv rays are not safe. But not getting uv rays is also not safe. Like so many things in biology, bodies are optimized for ranges in the middle and not at the extremes.
I'm aware of the importance of wearing a hat (with a brim) when in sunlight, to protect scalp and ears from UV radiation.
"Researchers think the three primary types of skin cancer -- melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma -- are mostly caused by too much time in the sun. So it’s very important to use sunscreen or cover up if you’re going to be outside longer than 15 minutes or so." https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/ss/slideshow-sunlight-he...
Pretty good news! But also I think this study tells us that people are infact staying in doors more then they should! Our levels of vitamin D are likely really low in general otherwise we wouldn't see that much of a diference.
I bet the supplement industry is going to be splashing this study all over the internet for the next few months.
I go to the dermatologist and get told to avoid the sun. I follow their advice and then go to my GP. He said vit-D is low so I supplement.
It feels like a failure of communication, but who knows. I only see one Dr at a time.
I think there's quite large gap between vitamin D deficiency cause you don't get any sunlight and getting so much sunlight that it's unhealthy.
As with anything health/nutrition related, the debate gets so comically two-sided with reductionist arguments talking past each other.
Get some sunlight but don't get a sunburn. It's not rocket science.
I don't see how being in the sun could be bad for us. We've been doing it for as long as we've existed and every other form of life does it as well. Anecdotally, I feel amazing when I'm sunbathing and I feel terrible during winter when there's less sun. The only explanation I can come up with is that modern people are somehow uniquely sick so their bodies can't do what every other organism has done for billions of years.
The American Cancer Society seems to advise differently:
There are no safe UV rays[1].
Exposure-incidence models agree[2].
1. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/sun-and-uv/sun...
2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25213656/
That's been my conclusion recently. While I'm sure it's true that people aren't getting enough vitamin D because they are indoors a lot, I'm not convinced you can't easily get enough of it in supplement form. If UV is only needed for vitamin D then you might as well avoid the aging effects of UV exposure and pop a pill.
I don't think we know the entirety of what happens in the skin with UV exposure. We are pretty sure that vitamin D is good, and that cancer is bad, and that seems to be all that people talk about, but there are a lot more things happening that we don't fully understand.
I suspect when we know more, the best answer is going to be moderation. But it's really anybody's guess right now.
There are even things that we do know about but generally aren't talked about such as UV-triggered nitric oxide release[1] which moderates blood pressure among other positive effects.
I want to be clear that there being pros and cons whose relative proportions change is very different than what some other commenters seem to be implying which is closer to a threshold model of UV safety which clearly doesn't exist and is non-scientific.
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13399-4
Uv rays are not safe. But not getting uv rays is also not safe. Like so many things in biology, bodies are optimized for ranges in the middle and not at the extremes.
I'm aware of the importance of wearing a hat (with a brim) when in sunlight, to protect scalp and ears from UV radiation. "Researchers think the three primary types of skin cancer -- melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma -- are mostly caused by too much time in the sun. So it’s very important to use sunscreen or cover up if you’re going to be outside longer than 15 minutes or so." https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/ss/slideshow-sunlight-he...
I'm outside a lot, but I'm in a less sunny climate than my ancestors and have a vitamin D deficiency all year round