I've known about this for years thanks to an awesome professor. I can't take the time to find the links at the moment, but as I recall there are some interesting converse relationships between breast and skin cancer rates in sunny vs. cloudy cities.

Twenty minutes of sun during 11am-2pm would give me a sunburn. Damn these Northern European genes! That said, I've read about this and I think it's always a good idea for everyone to spend some time outdoors daily. What they should tell people is to go for a half-hour walk every day. The exercise would be just as helpful as the vitamin D. I'm just worried that people--few of whom wear sunscreen as it is--will take this as a reason not to wear sunscreen and skin cancers will continue to rise.

But don't forget the sunscreen!!! We don't need any more skin cancers. It also reduces signs of aging, or so my partner the dermatologist says.

well, it's raining here right now, so I probably won't take you up on that advice at the moment, but good to know going forward.

Can't you also get vitamin D from drinking delicious milk? (assuming you're not a vegan and from an ethnic group that has enzymes to digest milk?)

But wear sunscreen!

It's healthier in many respects to take a vitamin D supplement-- no risk of cancer, no accelerated aging effects, and 20 minutes in the midday summer sun can burn you. You can always take a vitamin D supplement, but what happens if you miss a bad mole?

THank you for letting us know, Courtney! I already knew this to an extent, but it's kinda hard to do this today because it's cloudy... :(

Cod liver oil is also a good source of vitamin D, even if it is disgusting. Those Omega 3 fatty acids are also very, very good for you.

It depends on the person though, lighter people need less sun.

From one dermatologist:
*There is good data to show that vitamin D might help protect against some cancers.
*Vitamin D3 can be obtained from sun exposure or from your diet; there is no difference in the vitamin D3 obtained from either source.
*Adequate vitamin D can be obtained in most people by getting 5-15 minutes of sun on your face and hands three times a week. In most people, a maximum amount of vitamin D is reached after about 20 minutes of sun exposure, after which, vitamin D levels do not increase.
*The amount of vitamin D obtained from sunlight varies tremendously depending on where you live and on the color of your skin.

I drink massive amounts of 2% milk, so I think I'm safe. But this is definitely a change from the "a second of UV rays will give you cancer!" mantra

@BluePencils & @NYSofMind -- I also have that ultra-pale skin which turns ultra-red way too fast. There's no way I ever go outside at high noon, and not most other hours without a good slathering of sunblock.

But, I won't give up my half-hour walks in the evening, which not only let me get my dose of Vitamin D, they also let me relax and unwind from the stress of the day. (Not to mention my brats kids get a chance to run around and work off some energy.) Supplements can't do that as well! :-)

YES. I only recently learned about this in my physiology class. The prof said that, with American's lifestyle changes that keep us indoors more often in the daylight hours, there is a higher incidence of rickets in children as well.

I guess moderation in all things is the key - though I feel pretty bad for those of you who burn easily. I love the sun.

Ah! I can't win. I spend all my time inside as it is with school and video games, so I knew the little sun I get could only be good for me.

Unfortunately, Oregon's not very obliging.

20 minutes of direct sunlight will burn my skin Spending time outdoors is important, but I'll keep my skin protected with sunscreen/hats. I'm too afraid of skin cancer not to.

I asked my anatomy prof (who is also a medical doctor) about it, and according to him you can still absorb the vitamin D with sunscreen on, because I too have very light skin that is prone to burning. I live in Canada though, so usually I take vit. D supplements in winter, and sunshine all other seasons :)
You can't absorb calcium without it, so it's very important!

I've also known about this one for a while, but the Irish in me has made me very fair-skinned, so I generally try avoid excessive sunlight.

I guess it's made headlines somewhere recently because I've noticed tanning bed salons are using it in marketing. Darque Tan is running particularly annoying commercials one with women strutting around in bikinis (which makes since) and another of a women dressed up as a school girl (so... I guess they're reaching out for male customers?). Anyway, they're slogan is *says in a sexy voice* "Everyone needs a healthy dose of D."

OK, it's clever. I'll give them that.

I found one on YouTube, but not the lame school girl one.

Enjoy. ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MWIVeuBHrcQ

Oh, Gosh, I grew up in like, the hottest place on EARTH (Parker, AZ, which is near Lake Havasu City, AZ; have y'all ever felt 126 degrees and 30% humidity? 'Cuz I have. And then proceded to jump into the ~70 degree Colorado River), and like, you are SO not supposed to hang out in the sun for 20 minutes from 11am until 2pm there if you're not used to it. *I* probably could because it would probably take Mars for me to get any kind of real sunburn (and I'm pale), but I think most people in the hot parts of Arizona should probably be more careful. :P

The only time I really sunburned was when we would go tubing on the Colorado River. 'Cuz no matter how much sunscreen you put on, you canNOT escape that sun if you're on a tube in the river for 2+ hours.

Also, this reminds me of when I was 16 and went to Grand Forks, ND, to visit family, and we went to the river or lake or something, and my aunt was like, slathering on sunscreen and she still got a burn. Meanwhile, my two sisters and I did not put sunscreen on, were in the water a lot, and still did not sunburn. The sun was SO weak compared to what we were used to, it was almost like being outside at dawn in Arizona.

people should probably know what the actions they take will do, but the idea of a "health" scripts bodies in violent ways and reinforces an essentialist understanding of human-ness.

This is why commenters like cha el see feel excluded.

Think of the similarities to a post about weight-loss, and the importance of "health" in scripting "fit" bodies.

Cobblestone: Can you rephrase that? I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying, but are you saying that we shouldn't promote things as "healthy" because "health" is a constructed notion that does more harm than good? For a similar analogy to the one you made, would you say that we shouldn't promote the idea that drinking milk is a healthy habit because some people are lactose intolerant? If I've got it wrong, I apologize, but is that what you're saying?

Yes, the new research coming out about vitamin D is very interesting. Scientific American had an article a while back that was really good. New recommendations are for 1000 IU's a day. And, unfortunately, the images are not on the S.Am. site any longer, but there was a map showing where it was difficult to get enough sun exposure (UVB intensity is too weak) for skin to make enough vitamin D. Basically for Canada, northern Europe (including UK) it says the UVB is too weak most of the year. In the US it says it is too weak at least one month a year. The article is at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cell-defenses-and-the-sunshine-vitamin
- it is kind of long and very detailed. If your time is limited you might want to jump to the last 3 pages.

Just an FYI for the graveyarders -

If you have been out of sunlight for a long time like some of us, be sure to use protection when re-introducing yourself to direct sunlight, just for the first week. A study at my campus is looking at the link between overnight workers and melanoma - and they recommend gentle re-introduction to sunlight at first.

Hey! delurking to say:

For all things vitamin D related, please go to http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

There have been some amazing breakthroughs in the last couple of months. Go to the link and read the back issues of the newsletters. Dr. Cannell is an activist. He started out in the Coal Mines of WV working with black lung patients. Interesting background.

Hey! delurking to say:

For all things vitamin D related, please go to http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

There have been some amazing breakthroughs in the last couple of months. Go to the link and read the back issues of the newsletters. Dr. Cannell is an activist. He started out in the Coal Mines of WV working with black lung patients. Interesting background.

Hey! delurking to say:

For all things vitamin D related, please go to http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

There have been some amazing breakthroughs in the last couple of months. Go to the link and read the back issues of the newsletters. Dr. Cannell is an activist. He started out in the Coal Mines of WV working with black lung patients. Interesting background.

Twenty minutes seems awfully arbitrary, since it doesn't take into consideration the UV index of where you're living and the amount of UV-protective melanin you have in your skin.

Seeing as skin cancer is a risk on the other side of the spectrum , it can be dangerous to create and disseminate such recommendations. And if anyone thinks that a recommendation of unprotected exposure, 20 minutes a day, at high UV index times can't increase some people's risk for skin cancer, think again. The linked article posits that perhaps the reality of skin cancer has been distorted for commercial interests, but I would counter that the geographic and genetic variations that increase/decrease risks for skin cancer are just not well communicated. As a native Arizonan who knows more than a few individuals who have had cancerous skin cells removed, I know that it's an all too real problem in some parts of the world, and that is *not* a distorted reality.

Like the communication of skin cancer risks, this arbitrary exposure recommendation may also fail in the communication department, too, because it needs to be targeted toward the populations who are actually at risk of vitamin D deficiency (those with more melanin in their skin, those who live in regions with a low UV index, those who just never see the light of day, etc.), not given as a general recommendation for women as a whole.

The daughter of one of my co-workers was diagnosed with MS last year, and she's done a lot of research on the topic since then. She learned that there are higher rates of MS in more northern areas; it is theorized that this is because people in northern areas are exposed to the sun less often and so synthesize less vitamin D.
Of course, the only way to know for sure about the link between vitamin D and MS or certain cancers is to keep a large group of people in a climate-controlled box for twenty years and have them live the same life save vitamin D intake. But the longitudinal studies showing overall increases in areas with less sun are convincing enough for me.

I had trouble finding a map quickly, but the general rule is that little vitamin D is synthesized above 37 degrees latitude from Nov-Feb.

Cobblestone: Can you rephrase that? I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying, but are you saying that we shouldn't promote things as "healthy" because "health" is a constructed notion that does more harm than good? For a similar analogy to the one you made, would you say that we shouldn't promote the idea that drinking milk is a healthy habit because some people are lactose intolerant? If I've got it wrong, I apologize, but is that what you're saying?

@ wheresthebeef:

I am saying that "health" is a constructed notion that necessitates a violent sort of interaction between people.

My argument is that when we we construct a notion of what a "healthy" body looks like or how it "should" function, then bodies who don't fit this (often very narrow) definition are seen as "unhealthy" in a way that isolates them from society and classes them as "other."

I think that that's a problematic way to do politics.

Most of my research and thinking in this area has been in the mental health field. The way that we normalize the idea of "sane" or "mentally healthy" allows us to script the bodies of others in a way that requires us to "treat" them. "Homosexuality" was classified as a "disorder" in the DSM-IV (the book that mental health professionals use to diagnose and treat disorders) until 1973. This is a good example of how our classifications can grow and expand, but I'm not sure why they're necessary in the first place.

Rather than focusing on what a body can do to "be healthy," I think that we might be better served by getting more specific about the effects of given stimuli. I wouldn't object (well, following the above line of reasoning, at least) to claims that vitamin D deficiency has been linked to increased risk of cancer and some other diseases. I am merely troubled by what I see as some subtle attempts to link an "essential" notion of the body to a "rational justification" for said notion. The "medical model" of the body says that people who want to be "overweight" or "underweight" or transsexual or who are intersexed are "wrong" or "aberrant" and need to be "fixed" or "treated.

I think people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Sorry for all the quotation marks.

I've heard (though I have no way to confirm it) that this contributes to a high number of Muslim women in areas where they are expected to be completely covered at all times and African Americans in extreme northern and southern latitudes getting rickets.

A few things on Vitamin D:
Be careful with supplements. Because it's fat-soluble, it's possible to get hypervitaminosis, so make sure you're not taking much more than 100% DV.

Be wary of the 20 minutes recommendation. People living closer to the equator, or people living under the hole in the ozone layer, need much less sun. People living further north, or who have darker skin, need much more.

Sunscreen isn't legally required (at least in the US) to block the cancer-causing UVA radiation, and there's no good test for whether it does, so be skeptical of UVA blocking screens. Also, UVA won't cause sunburns, so you won't know whether you're being over-radiated.