Need Vitamin D? Try Mushrooms

[tim-from-pa]

Hey, I'm game for anything that will add to my vitamin D levels especially in this age where we are told that we are Draculas that will melt in the sun like butter with horrific cancer if we so much as run to our car unprotected by sunscreen (OK, I exaggerate, but not by much because going to your car in a parking lot may expose you for a measly 5 minutes, about one third of the time they recommend the maximum time in the sun!)

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/GeneralEndocrinology/38605

However, while the mushrooms (IMO) gave so-so results compared to the 2000 unit supplements, I was not impressed with the "after" blood values of any of them.

The best value, the D3 group, still should be double, or close to it, to get the benefit of vitamin D protection. At the very least one should have a D level in their blood of 38 (let's round that to 40)ng/mL and double or triple is even better for other things. They probably think these patients are the "picture of health" now and when they get cancer one day we'll then be told "Those in vitamin D study demonstrates that vitamin D does not prevent cancer." Sheeeeez. :

 

[Knotical]

No thanks, can't stand mushrooms. I will take my chances with the Sun.

 

[tim-from-pa]

No thanks, can't stand mushrooms. I will take my chances with the Sun.

:toofunny Attaboy!

 

[elizabethbraddock]

Hey, I'm game for anything that will add to my vitamin D levels especially in this age where we are told that we are Draculas that will melt in the sun like butter with horrific cancer if we so much as run to our car unprotected by sunscreen (OK, I exaggerate, but not by much because going to your car in a parking lot may expose you for a measly 5 minutes, about one third of the time they recommend the maximum time in the sun!)

I think you are purposely obscuring the nature of UV exposure or genuinely do not understand the meaning of cancer risk. First of all, I am not aware of any group or health organization that states that the sun should be avoided at all costs, nor that UV exposure will 100% lead to skin cancer. This is not the case at all. Increased UV exposure increases the risk of skin cancer, it does not equate to a 100% chance of developing skin cancer.

Secondly, there is no maximum exposure time for UV; such a time would be impossible to calculate since it depends on geographic location, weather conditions, local environmental conditions, and skin pigment concentration. A dark-skinned person can easily stay out in the sun with very little chance of harm while a fair-skinned person would be at higher risk of incurring sun damage. The "5 minutes is a third of the recommended" you are talking about is for vitamin D synthesis. ~15-20 minutes is all a person needs to be able to synthesize their daily requirement of vitamin D. It is not a maximum exposure time, it is the minimum amount of time needed to synthesize your daily requirement of vitamin D.

 

[jasoncran]

i will be getting way more sun that i need if i get tranfered. i may wear a hat and long pants in the heat. i don't tan, i burn.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Hey, I'm game for anything that will add to my vitamin D levels especially in this age where we are told that we are Draculas that will melt in the sun like butter with horrific cancer if we so much as run to our car unprotected by sunscreen (OK, I exaggerate, but not by much because going to your car in a parking lot may expose you for a measly 5 minutes, about one third of the time they recommend the maximum time in the sun!)

I think you are purposely obscuring the nature of UV exposure or genuinely do not understand the meaning of cancer risk. First of all, I am not aware of any group or health organization that states that the sun should be avoided at all costs, nor that UV exposure will 100% lead to skin cancer. This is not the case at all. Increased UV exposure increases the risk of skin cancer, it does not equate to a 100% chance of developing skin cancer.

I have a good sense of perception. If I am obscuring anything, then it's because that's how the message is coming across. And the message is coming across "put on your sunscreen". Even my wife is nagging me about this as we plan later to set sail on a cruise. I said I'll cover up but she insists my arms will be exposed for long hours and should still use it. This is what people are being "programmed" to believe this hype, and that's what it is.

While your position may be technically correct, the message is the opposite, otherwise why would I be poking fun at the tripe?

Secondly, there is no maximum exposure time for UV; such a time would be impossible to calculate since it depends on geographic location.......

Hold it right there! Before you go any further, I am a gnomonist. I know all about time and the sun, so I can calculate that based on geographic location. I even told my wife I could calculate the position of the sun due to her concerns.

Now, previously you mentioned increased UV light due to the degrading atmosphere. Depends on who you ask. Lately people have been complaining (since the 1990's) about more supposed skin cancer. Geeeez. That's pretty quick for a supposed degrading ionosphere that even that can't degrade that rapidly. But.... we had the start of chemtrails since then, but chemtrails actually decrease the UV light. Hmmmmm. How convenient. Less UV, less vitamin D, more cancer. But I guess I digress tonight, Just a thought to the mixture.

 

[elizabethbraddock]

I have a good sense of perception. If I am obscuring anything, then it's because that's how the message is coming across. And the message is coming across "put on your sunscreen". Even my wife is nagging me about this as we plan later to set sail on a cruise. I said I'll cover up but she insists my arms will be exposed for long hours and should still use it. This is what people are being "programmed" to believe this hype, and that's what it is. While your position may be technically correct, the message is the opposite, otherwise why would I be poking fun at the tripe?

While there is a general message from the mainstream media that advocates the use of sunscreen, I think that you'll find the scientific community is not claiming that spending time in the sun will kill, nor should anyone be fearful of being in the sun--on the contrary, a well informed public is apt to make better choices about when and how they spend their time in the sun. The problem is that the average person does not get scientific information from good, reputable, scholarly sources; instead, they get it from the mass media and popular science editorials, which tend to sensationalize and not gloss over the details of a study.

I know all about time and the sun, so I can calculate that based on geographic location. I even told my wife I could calculate the position of the sun due to her concerns.

Again, you have misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not speaking of calculating the position of the sun based on geography, or even how much UV is penetrating the atmosphere--those things are easily calculated with some basic knowledge of mathematics. What I was referring to is that there is no maximum exposure time for UV; in other words, there are no recommended limits as to how much UV a person can be exposed to in a given day that would result in DNA damage. It wouldn't be possible to come up with such a guideline because of the variables of the degree of skin pigmentation and location. You referred to 5 minutes as being 1/3 of some imaginary UV maximum exposure, but no such limit exists. However, we do know how much time you need to spend in the sun in order to synthesize your daily requirement of vitamin D, which is 15-20 minutes.

Now, previously you mentioned increased UV light due to the degrading atmosphere. Depends on who you ask. Lately people have been complaining (since the 1990's) about more supposed skin cancer.

The amount of UV radiation that is able to penetrate the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 30 year period, since the 1960's, and has stabilized in the mid-1990's. A 30 year period is more than enough time for us to see the effects of this radiation, and we have; a whole generation that has grown up in that time period has seen increasing skin cancer prevalence. This has been demonstrated in populations that come from geographic locations that do not have much UV exposure who have relocated to areas that have much higher UV exposure. For example, skin cancer prevalence is low in norther European countries and Russia, but if these populations migrate to the US or Australia, these populations show an increase in skin cancer prevalence. Many longitudinal studies have demonstrated this; animal experiments under controlled conditions have also demonstrated that UV exposure is the primary contributor to skin cancer.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Glad that the mid 1990's was pointed out; glad you mentioned it as that does confirm something going on here. Then.... the only thing to do is wait because if the UV goes down again after the present stabilization, this should prove interesting what that does to the skin cancer. My guess.... it's still probably going to increase, or at least not improve much, especially since the worse kinds of cancer appear where the sun does not shine.

 

[elizabethbraddock]

It seems to me that you aren't interested in having a discussion based on reason and science; I have addressed your points scientifically, but you have not addressed any of mine. You state your beliefs without giving any justification for them: without data, without research, and without any scientific/biomedical information. If you have some scholarly information that supports your beliefs, by all means, please provide it. I will also provide a list of scholarly sources and we can have a friendly and honest discussion on the merits of each study. Otherwise, I fear that you are more interested in asserting your own beliefs without an interest in further discourse. If that's the case, this is going in circles and I do not wish to participate in circular discussions.

 

[tim-from-pa]

It seems to me that you aren't interested in having a discussion based on reason and science; I have addressed your points scientifically, but you have not addressed any of mine. You state your beliefs without giving any justification for them: without data, without research, and without any scientific/biomedical information. If you have some scholarly information that supports your beliefs, by all means, please provide it. I will also provide a list of scholarly sources and we can have a friendly and honest discussion on the merits of each study. Otherwise, I fear that you are more interested in asserting your own beliefs without an interest in further discourse. If that's the case, this is going in circles and I do not wish to participate in circular discussions.

Go to my next post.....

 

[tim-from-pa]

Now, just to show I don't let any stones unturned, for Elizabeth or anyone interested, here's an example of the statistical nonsense I find out there (I previously did a thread or two showing mainline scientific statistical contradictions, but just for fun here's another set)

From Nasa, they say how our ozone depletion has allowed more UV light through the last 3 decades but stabilized since the 1990's.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html

OK, Uhuh. I can dig that. I believe that. Does this affect health? Sure it will. Some. A the scientist there calculated (Jay Herman):

For Greenbelt, Md., for example, he calculated that a 7 percent increase in UV yielded a 4.4 percent increase in the damage to skin, a 4.8 percent increase in damage to DNA....

According to the article. Very specific percentages indeed. Are they culmulative or is this a one time increase? He answers that by saying,

"If you go to the beach these days, you're at slightly higher risk of getting skin cancer (without protection),"

Though he noted the risk would have been even greater in the absence of regulations on ozone-depleting substances.

OK. I'm cool with that so far. Now for the cancer sites:

http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts

In which the site brings to us this dreadful fact:

Treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers increased by nearly 77 percent between 1992 and 2006

and it goes on to say:

About 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun.

Leading us to believe the sun is the main culprit. And after the UV light stabilized off, we YET got this increase. Oh, yeah, I know.... they got this earlier supposedly and it just came out later. That would only work for older populations, not these young people who are getting it now, and you'll see why in a minute but.... let's continue with this site:

http://www.va.gov/health/NewsFeatures/20120621a.asp

To which they say:

For the past 30 years skin cancers have been increasing by about three percent each year.

Oh? So these increases did not just happen recently, but over the last 30 years at 3% a year. Now anyone who knows basic exponents can calculate this simply like a compound interest problem. The ratio number at 3% per year means that there's over DOUBLE the people now with this cancer than 30 years ago.

Let's revisit the first statement and quote:

a 4.8 percent increase in damage to DNA....

and

you're at slightly higher risk of getting skin cancer

So now..... which is it? Double or just slightly higher? especially since all the sources gave such specific "facts and figures". This is why I don't trust statistics. So, what is the moral of the articles directed at the likes of me who don't quote my sources?

Besides avoiding the sun, early diagnosis and treatment are the next best prevention options.....

.....is the moral of the story and the agenda.

The truth is, I don't quote sources not because I can't, but because they blatantly contradict themselves and come across the same nonsense.

So, I stand firmly by what I said a few posts back where to put the blame (from my other thread....

if we are four points sicker, I'd blame one point on the sun giving out more UV and the other 3 for being sickly.

Or to put it another way, let's stop putting all the blame on the sun, and try to find out why we are so unhealthy as to not be able to take the sunlight instead of blaming the ozone, solar cycles or whatever. That's the honest crux of my message.

 

[Kaileymarie]

I agree with you tim! The moment I started reading your post I knew we were on the same page.

It's also interesting to note that the big "sunscreen boom" happened in the 50's. Sunscreen may very well even be part of the problem. But hey.. It makes some people big bucks.

 

[farouk]

I agree with you tim! The moment I started reading your post I knew we were on the same page.

It's also interesting to note that the big "sunscreen boom" happened in the 50's. Sunscreen may very well even be part of the problem. But hey.. It makes some people big bucks.

[MENTION=93407]Kaileymarie[/MENTION] :

So maybe tanning on the beach is okay after all...

(Or maybe not quite...)



Blessings.

 

[tim-from-pa]

It's also interesting to note that the big "sunscreen boom" happened in the 50's. Sunscreen may very well even be part of the problem. But hey.. It makes some people big bucks.

So true, but I'm old enough to remember the days when they called it "suntan lotion". As a matter of fact, my wife and I still call it that. :toofunny

As some additional humor, I remember the days they called it a "check-up" or "physical" at the doctor's. Now it's a wellness exam. View attachment 3174

This affected generation is really, really messed up; they can't think straight any more.

On the downside, this sort of stuff I rant against is the very stuff that will bring in the beast and false prophet in the end times, and those who can't see that are indeed headed for it, but that's another story for another thread.

 

[Kaileymarie]

It's also interesting to note that the big "sunscreen boom" happened in the 50's. Sunscreen may very well even be part of the problem. But hey.. It makes some people big bucks.

So true, but I'm old enough to remember the days when they called it "suntan lotion". As a matter of fact, my wife and I still call it that. :toofunny

As some additional humor, I remember the days they called it a "check-up" or "physical" at the doctor's. Now it's a wellness exam. View attachment 4176

This affected generation is really, really messed up; they can't think straight any more.

On the downside, this sort of stuff I rant against is the very stuff that will bring in the beast and false prophet in the end times, and those who can't see that are indeed headed for it, but that's another story for another thread.

I feel you, Tim.

Just yesterday I was at my Mom's house with my three kids and I pulled out the "gogurt" she had for them. I thought they used to contain high frustoce corn syrup, but they don't anymore. I said "they found out it blocks the bodies ability to remove all of the toxins. Some think that could be part of the problem with autism, because if their diet is high in high fructose corn syrup and they get vaccines, the mercury isn't flushed out the way it should be."

Makes sense, right?

She literally rolled her eyes at me.

Apparently I'm a conspiracy theorist.

Oh well. Ignorance is bliss. Some people just don't want to know because it's inconvenient and they don't want to acknowledge that our government wouldn't control that sort of thing.

 

[Kaileymarie]

Remove a lot of the toxins***

Autocorrect doesn't always work so well!

 

[farouk]

Remove a lot of the toxins***

Autocorrect doesn't always work so well!

Kaileymarie:

Not even all toadstools are toxic, are they?

(But bearing in mind that those that are indeed toxic, are very toxic; the trick is to tell the difference...)

Blessings.

 

[Knotical]

Remove a lot of the toxins***

Autocorrect doesn't always work so well!

Kaileymarie:

Not even all toadstools are toxic, are they?

(But bearing in mind that those that are indeed toxic, are very toxic; the trick is to tell the difference...)

Blessings.

I think the easiest way to tell is to give one to someone you don't like, if they start getting sick, then that would be a bad one.

 

[farouk]

Remove a lot of the toxins***

Autocorrect doesn't always work so well!

Kaileymarie:

Not even all toadstools are toxic, are they?

(But bearing in mind that those that are indeed toxic, are very toxic; the trick is to tell the difference...)

Blessings.

I think the easiest way to tell is to give one to someone you don't like, if they start getting sick, then that would be a bad one.

K: I see why Medieval kings would employ an official taster to taste the food they were about to eat, in case it had been poisoned...

 

[Knotical]

K: I see why Medieval kings would employ an official taster to taste the food they were about to eat, in case it had been poisoned...

Which may, or may not, be a cushy job. It would just depend on how merciful and benevolent the King/Queen is. If they are not generally liked I would think the position of Taster would be rather hard to fill, at least voluntarily.