Vitamin D: Potent regulator of dopaminergic neuron differentiation and function | Hacker News Reader

Vitamin D: Potent regulator of dopaminergic neuron differentiation and function

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

188 pointsbookofjoe239 comments

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.

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.

Vitamin D is fat soluble. The fat in milk helps your body to absorb it better.

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.”

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/

Right, but they don’t show you need a lot of fat to help with absorption.

but doesn't pasteurization kill any vitamins and nutrients?

How would this affect the added vitamin and fat?

It helps the poster build a straw man argument.

No, it doesn't.

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

I think the parent meant

"`for any choice of (∀) nutrient, pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false"

Rather than

"`any nutrient (∃), pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false" - which is what you seem to be responding to.

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/)

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).

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.

Aye, vit d in pill form is cheap and abundant. doesn't require a huge farm to produce and is stable for a lot longer than a couple liters of milk.

I take 1000-3000 IUs with dinner at night a couple times a week and sleep like the dead.

"I started eating [Y that has a lot of stuff in it, including X] -> started feeling better -> Y must be good for you"

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.

can't really tolerate lactose, can't even digest it literally. Any alternatives for that ? currently living in northen-europe.

Vitamin D pills.

Look for lactose-free milk, typically color-coded in purple tones.

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.

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/

A2 milk

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.

Environment won’t care, drink milk

I drink milk from my local farm, and they sell their beer. Win win.

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/articles/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.

> 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 1.5°C 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_Agricultu...

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...

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.

Diet choices are things that really matter, as you can see in the IPCC report summary

If most people were willing to change their diets overnight, maybe. Mathematically or statistically, irrelevant when you take into account real human beings. It's as disingenuous as saying "if everyone were nice, Earth would be paradise".

Soon enough, capitalism will force people to change their diets overnight. When 1lb of beef is $30, people will think twice what to eat for diner.

Now, whether it's carbon tax that'll force e.g. beef to go to its true cost, or climate change, that I don't know.

That doesn't sound much like a dietary 'choice' to me. I hope pricing can force the necessary changes in time. Honestly, I fully expect disaster levels sea level rise within my lifetime...

  'Cows Toilet Trained'

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.

>But it is what we need at the moment to feed the world's population.

Not true. The American food system is incredibly wasteful, and people are getting sick from diseases associated with western diets and overeating, like diabetes and heart disease. People eating traditional eastern diets use less resources and have less diet related illnesses.

Industrial farming is not helpful or needed. The only thing it's good for is putting money in some people's pockets.

Okay... I totally agree with you. I'm a "shop from the sides of the store, not the middle" kind of person.

We ought to worry about meat agriculture before cow milk consumption. Meat ag presents multiple existential threats greater than diabetes, cancer, or obesity:

- Cramming thousands of animals together with their excrement and humans who work with it creates a convenient pandemic pathogen bioreactor

- Antibiotic resistance by abusing the same substance (just a different supply chain) to make animals grow faster at the expense of antibiotics ceasing to work in people

- Climate change, roughly 10%

- Pollution of air, water, and soil (Ever see what pig farmers do with shit? They liquify it and spray it in the air in shit lakes.)

- Inefficient use of agricultural land and resources that could feed more people and more cheaply

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.

I had taken one a long while ago in a checkup and my levels were abysmally low. That explained why I was miserable at the time.

Supplemented for a bit and it was a stark turn around, but I fell out of the habit of doing it and forgot. I drink a half gallon a day easily.

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.

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.

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.

Ah yes, the “dermatologist cartel” of untrustworthy white coats. rolls eyes

Please provide sources for the evidence you speak of.

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

And now show us list of their sponsors. I'll bet there will be several sunblock manufacturers on it.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

The cholesterol thing sounded like sarcasm in my ears.

Apart from that, zero tolerance makes no sense - do they really recommend to wear sunscreen on a cloudy winter day? - but it is somewhat debatable that some people still underestimate the destructive effects of overexposure.

And the elefant in the room is of course your skin type.

Couple of my friends have skin of the fitzpatrick type with reddish hair, light skin and many dark spots.

For them sunscreen is a must when I wouldn't even think about it.

Another interesting tangent: wasn't there a somewhat potent carcinogenic in most sunscreen products?

Only makes the tradeoff even harder.

Edit: found it, I meant this:

https://health.unl.edu/can-sunscreen-cause-cancer-how-avoid-...

I didn’t sense sarcasm. I could’ve misinterpreted.

Cloudy days still have plenty of UV, depending on where you are (especially near the equator).

Skin type matters, of course, and I would probably be less heavy handed with the recommendation, but the “zero tolerance” issue wasn’t the original point as I understood it.

[edit] Quote from the very article you posted:

“It's important to note that these results are from one study (Valisure), which hasn't yet been validated. Strangely, they also detected benzene in blank test tubes (no sunscreen), leaving some to question if the testing methods contributed to the levels detected.

Toxicologists note that even if you applied the worst sunscreen on the Valisure list to your entire body, you'd be exposed to less than half the amount of benzene you breathe in normal city air in a day. Benzene is also very unstable, so it's unclear how much would be absorbed through the skin.

Don’t let this study convince you to skip sunscreen altogether. Although benzene is a potential risk, it pales in comparison to the known, real risk of UV radiation. Instead, take the time to check that your preferred sunscreen isn’t on the list of contaminated products.”

>> You need to protect your skin from the sun every day

Agree

>> even when it’s cloudy

Bullshit.

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.

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.

This is not an American centric view. Dermatologists in many countries throughout Europe, especially northern countries, strongly advise the use of sunblock.

The high cholesterol level is likely correlated to vitamin d.

A lot of these studies came out of heart disease investigations within the black community. In the US there is just more compared to West Africa, and after controlling for weight, income, diet, etc., they guessed the difference was likely sunlight and outdoor time.

Followup studies found similar findings, albeit less pronounced with white and middle eastern people.

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

In general, norther countries need more protection from the sun, not less. The rates of skin cancer go up significantly as you move north. My guess is partly cultural, but I don't know for sure the cause. When it is dark all winter, people want to spend as much time in the sun as they can during summer, perhaps. The fact that you also get more natural summer exposure due to longer days is probably part of it.

I went for a six hour walk in the rain in April and got sunburnt in the UK.

I was surprised.

Clouds attenuate UV-A in unexpected ways. UV-B and -C leads to aging and skin cancer.

UV light is also bad for the eyes.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/sunshine-on-a-clou...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10872925/

Healthy Sun Exposure[1,2] depends on your Latitude[3], Hemisphere[4,5], Time of Day (Dawn & Dusk),

Exposure Time, Skin and Eye Type[6], Coverings (Clothing, Sunscreen, UV Filtering Glasses)[7,8]

[1] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...

[2] Ultraviolet - Human Health-related effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Human_health-relat...

[3] Latitude : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude

[4] Ozone Depletion - Effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Effects

[5] NASA - Ozone Watch : https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[6] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure - Benefits of Optic Exposure & Effects on Eyes

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...

[7] Sunscreen : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

[8] Ultraviolet - Sunscreen Safety Debate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Sunscreen_safety_d...

Ozone: hey, at least we managed to ban CFCs internationally.

If we can do that, it's confusing how we can't incrementally tackle climate change with selective international agreements that would make the most impact for the socio-economic burden.

> Ozone: hey, at least we managed to ban CFCs internationally.

Ban doesn't mean they aren't still produced.

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2843/...

The Ultraviolet Index, or UV Index : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index

UV Index - The Sun Safety Scale - Forefront Dermatology (2017)

: https://forefrontdermatology.com/uv-index-sun-safety-scale/

A Guide to the UV Index (PDF) : https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/uviguid...

Ultraviolet Index - External links - 'UV Index Forecast' - 'Real-time Global Ultraviolet Index'

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index#External_lin...

The Fitzpatrick Scale (aka) Fitzpatrick Skin Typing test; or Fitzpatrick phototyping scale

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale

Developed in 1975 by American dermatologist Thomas B. Fitzpatrick,

as a way to estimate the response of different types of skin to ultraviolet (UV) light.

Season : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder

Light Therapy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy

Vitamin D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D

Vitamin D Deficiency : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency

Vitamin D Toxicity (aka) Hypervitaminosis D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D

But longer UV-A wavelengths can help with progressing myopia https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28063778/

Black-and-white thinking is unsciеntific.

This is how to get skin cancer like malignant melanoma and how to age one's skin.

Anyone not intent on looking old prematurely uses sunscreen.

Looking "young" past a certain age just looks weird and creepy anyway.

This is a very common attitude in northern Europe, but it’s dangerous. I recently saw a dermatologist, I live at approximately the same latitude as the UK, east of there. He strongly advised sunblock, especially for children. You so very rarely see children wearing it during the summer. You are really playing with your health if you ignore these dangers.

Here are some maps of the effect of sun exposure on skin cancer as you move north through Europe: https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf/factsheets/Melanoma_cancer...

Sunblock doesn’t block those beneficial benefits from sunlight; it blocks getting burnt, which can lead to cancer.

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-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36108241

UV-A, -B, and -C are bad in different ways. Sunburns skew towards UV-A, while cancer and aging tends to be from UV-B and -C. Vitamin D synthesis results from UV-B exposure.

Sure, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, the studies (at present, which doesn’t mean we won’t learn more in the future) do not support the assertion that sunblock prevents Vitamin D synthesis in any meaningful way, despite what a random blog post might tell you.

Amen. :) You're preaching to the choir. Health and wellness blogs generally service the theater of the placebo and hivemind ignorance bordering on mysticism.

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...

I saw a summary of an extensive series of studies where the punchline was: "Yes, exposure to the Sun will increase your risk of cancer. Do it anyway."

My understanding is that the main correlation between sunlight and skin cancer is for sudden exposure to strong sun. If you go outside all year without sunblock (as people used to do back in the day), and thus build up and maintain a natural tan, the cancer risk is very low. But if you sit inside all year and then suddenly go to the beach,l in July, the risk increases.

I do not know a single person who died from skin cancer. And only a few who had skin cancer. The prevalence cannot be sufficiently high to justify a hysteria.

The 1903 Nobel was given to a guy who showed that light cures Lupus, a terrible skin disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Ryberg_Finsen

It it very well established in science that light is good for you in some many different ways.

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.

mmmmm heavy metals and microplastics

Small fish like sardines have very low amounts of heavy metals to the point it’s negligible. I couldn’t confidently tell you anything about microplastics though

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/are-sardines-healthy-and...

Unsweetened and Unflavored Pot-set 'Greek Style' Yogurt before bedtime is my preference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogurt

>* European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) determined that lactose intolerance can be alleviated,

by ingesting live yogurt cultures (lactobacilli) that are able to digest the lactose in other dairy products.*

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?

and/or eat a lot of food rich in Vitamin D.

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.

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.

It also depends on your skin color and latitude.

it varies greatly person to person.

+1. I was deficient, despite averaging 7000 steps per day (80 min of walking). I also live in seattle and stay bundled up

Copenhagen in the winter will have you sit outside all day. All 6 hours of it.

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.

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.

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

30 minutes with large skin contact. Take off your shirt or have a tank top.

That's enough for skin cancer where I live. 5min tops.

It's enough for frostbite where I live.

It’s enough for mosquitoes where I live.

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.

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.

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?

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.

WFH what?

"Work from home"

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.

I have no excuses.

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.

So, it is better to be forced to go somewhere that they don’t want to go so that they are forced to go outside for a few minutes (or seconds even).

Life produces long-term non-reversible damage, I'm afraid.

But up to a certain point it's the complete opposite.

Unfortunately that point is around 18 years of age.

I sincerely hope you meant that figuratively. If not, I'm sorry, and I hope you managed to stay relatively sane during those years.

Jail, sadly. No windows, no fresh air. Took me almost 10 years to get the bond money together to get out. I was only in there because I couldn't get access to my money from inside the jail.

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.

Jail, sadly. No windows, no fresh air. Took me almost 10 years to get the bond money together to get out. I was only in there because I couldn't get access to my money from inside the jail.

I may have a clue: you are most likely to suffer no harm at all. Certainly not as far as sunlight/Vit D goes. ( though windows can be good for things like diluting foul air). Read the works of Prof Trevor Marshall for a lengthy explanation.

Curiosity: How did you land up in the windowless situation?

Jail, sadly. No windows, no fresh air. Took me almost 10 years to get the bond money together to get out. I was only in there because I couldn't get access to my money from inside the jail.

Gosh. I had a look at your other posts. It's terrible what's happened to you.

Since you appear to have seen the underbelly of society you make want to look at my profile and read the link I've put on my profile. It may sound a little predatory when I suggest that you look at my profile, but so be it.

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: ⅓m width * ¼m length * 158W/m2 solar = 13W out of 67W to run it, or 19%.

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.

I wonder what stone age people did about skin cancer. Nothing, I assume.

I don’t think they lived long enough for it to be a problem.

They were a lot longer outside than modern people though.

Outside != full sun.

Sitting in tree shade won't give you skin cancer.

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?

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

Bro what - they did not use sunscreen - where did they get titanium and zinc?

The History of Sunscreen

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...

Also not seeing titanium, zinc, oxybenzone, octinoxate, octisalate, or avobenzone.

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.

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.

> 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/sunscree...

The statement was about skin cancer, and the implication is that they did nothing about it.

Sunscreen is a 20th century term, and modern sunscreen as we know it came into use in the mid-20th century.

https://www.heifer.org/blog/sun-protection-through-the-ages-...

Not seeing titanium, zinc, oxybenzone, octinoxate, octisalate, or avobenzone.

That’s not our sunscreen.

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

Cancer is a bigger problem now because we have learned how to deal with other diseases.

Well yeah.. just like wild animals which break a leg, catch a serious diseases etc. they can't do anything about it and die.

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.

they were dead by 40, skin cancer usually takes a little longer to show up and kill you.

How long did Stone Age people live? I thought most people died at like 40? I’m planning on living longer than that.

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.

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.

So the advice to "touch grass" was actually well intentioned?

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.

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.

Sunlight does way more than let the skin convert this specific chemical. You could look up photobiomodulation, for example.

Sure, get a sun lamp.

Get an under-desk elliptical, vit D oil drops, bake bread with 50% wheat flour replaced with almond/coconut/sunflower/pumpkin/etc meal.

Wham, unhealthy lifestyle eradicated at almost no behavioural cost.

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™ 95 CRI T8 LED Tube (kind of pricy though, and will need a specialized ballast fixture, also a bit pricy).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vitamin D3 can help avoid Covid-19 infection, IMHO elderly should take it daily. https://scitechdaily.com/study-finds-vitamin-d3-important-fo...

Wonder how many ADHD and depression diagnoses could be flipped with sufficient vitamin D and exercise

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.

As many as are entirely caused by the insufficiency of either or both of those factors.

That is to say, few.

Those factors are aids to alleviate complex, serious conditions - not standalone cures or vaccines.

There's a spectrum of executive focus and health. Will help some people, but for some there's no wishing or habituating it away.

Some, definitely not most. Often unhealthy lifestyle is the product of the underlying dysfunction rather than the other way around.

People with chronic illness all have broken sleep(sleep disordered breathing), digestion(pathogenic gut microbiome), or other chronic illness(persistent virus presence is recently being associated with neurodegenerative disease, wouldn't surprise me if it caused mental health problems in earlier life)

zero

adhd here. can confirm.

Same. Diet (e.g., Vitamin D, fish oil, mackerel + salmon, veggie variety) and (lots of) exercise work quite well.

Also, people exhibiting more understanding and compassion towards others who are not exactly like them is quite helpful when moderating executive disfunction. Lower anxiety helps persons with ADHD/ASD successfully develop and maintain routines.

Vitamin D is also good for bone density. My kid's doctor recommended it for scoliosis since people with that tend to have lower bone density later in life and supplementing gets them back to normal levels.

My $0.02. Don’t use sunscreen except when absolutely necessary. Wear and shirt/hat instead.

My current strategy is wear long sleeves and hats.

But put sunscreen on hands and face (to fight aging and cancer).

Then take supplements

lol hi melanoma!

lol hi neurodegenerative conditions associated with low sunlight exposure!

Which condition specifically?

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/

> 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.

Agreed. Fitness and proper vitamin levels don't require sunburns, skin cancer, or prematurely aged skin to attain. All of the "macho" men who thumb their noses at skin cancer (or smoking and lung cancer) are usually the ones who have their noses removed when a malignancy is discovered.

No one said it did. But it also might not require sunscreen with equal likelihood. /shrug

The point is we don't know, which is the case with most lifestyle/diet choices that aren't obviously bad in a vast majority of cases, like smoking and overeating.

What's your definition of absolutely necessary?

My $0.02. Always use sunscreen & eat more Vitamin D in your diet

My $0.02. PFAS.

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.

you can order your own blood tests now.

Fuck, that reminded me to take my vitamins today. :)

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.

Please please please can someone finally make a decent high refresh colour computer screen that works in the sunlight.

Imagine what good it would do if we could all sit in the sun soaking up that sweet vitamin d while we work.

Whoever owns that e-ink patent please get on with it!

The problem is physics. Not patents.

But only one company owns all the patents.

If more companies were involved in developing it, in competition, there would surely be more progress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com