 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Immunology Forum » Can sun exposure lower the rates of MS |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| bigvince |
 Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vitamin d [sun exposure] and MS " Childhood sun exposure may
lower risk of MS"
"People who spent more time in the sun as children may have a lower
risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than people who had less
sun exposure during childhood, according to a study published in the
July 24, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the
American Academy of Neurology.
For the study, researchers surveyed 79 pairs of identical twins with
the same genetic risk for MS in which only one twin had MS. The twins
were asked to specify whether they or their twin spent more time
outdoors during hot days, cold days, and summer, and which one spent
more time sun tanning, going to the beach and playing team sports as a
child.
The study found the twin with MS spent less time in the sun as a child
than the twin who did not have MS. Depending on the activity, the twin
who spent more hours outdoors had a 25 to 57 percent reduced risk of
developing MS. For example, the risk of developing MS was 49 percent
lower for twins who spent more time sun tanning than their siblings.
"Sun exposure appears to have a protective effect against MS," said
study authors Talat Islam, MBBS, PhD, and Thomas Mack, MD, MPH, with
the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California
in Los Angeles. "Exposure to ultra violet rays may induce protection
against MS by alternative mechanisms, either directly by altering the
cellular immune response or indirectly by producing immunoactive
vitamin D." full story at
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/childhood-sun-exposure-may-lower-risk-ms-13768.html
As recent studies have shown vitamin d linked to a 50 % or greater
reduction in certain cancers . One can only wonder if conventional
medicines advice to avoid sun exposure [ the most natural source of
vitamin d ] has caused more harm then good. Thanks Vince |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Wiss |
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:07:21 -0700, Medusa <Medusa4303@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:431ea1852e]Don't take too much Vitamin D, either; it is a 'fat soluable" vitamin
that will stay in your body, A Vitamin D overdose is toxic.
[/quote:431ea1852e]
Medusa,
Toxicity isn't a problem until you are taking over 10,000 units a day. I
take 5,000 units a day, and have taken 4,000 or 5,000 units a day for
years. I measure the level in my blood regularly and it still is not over
the level that some consider optimal for cancer prevention.
Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bryan Heit |
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
bigvince wrote:
<snip>
First thing I would point out is I posted multiple studies; you
cherry-picked one which fit your bias. Why didn't you bother with the
others?
We, of course, all know the answer to that. You're too cowardly to
actually read the papers who's abstracts appear to counter your beliefs.
I read the entirety of your paper (which you apparently have not read
yourself). At the very least you could try and read a few of the
multiple papers I linked too....
As for your re-posting of the abstract, as I've pointed out before the
abstract isn't the paper. If you read the entirety of your paper,
rather then its abstract, you'll see the authors are more negative about
the accuracy of their results then the abstract will suggest, and that
the looked exclusively at studies using sunscreens which don't block UVA
- the known risk-factor for melanoma. You'd also notice that most of
their studies were conducted decades ago; long before effective
sunscreens even existed.
Bryan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tedhutchinson |
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:3af758d60b]That's a no-brainer. Firstly, medical advice is not to avoid sun, but
rather to protect yourself from UV. Since conventional methods of UV
protection (sunscreen, clothes) do not block enough of the light
responsible for Vit D synthesis - even in patients who have to wear
sunscreen full-time due to pigmentation problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView...
Search=9418761
[/quote:3af758d60b]
Since that research was issued in 1999 idea of what NORMAL and what is
OPTIMAL Vitamin d status has moved on as has the accuracy of measuring
Vitamin d status.
Without reading the whole paper is difficult to guess what they
understand by " mean values of serum 25-OHD were low normal," But
OPTIMAL vitamin d status is now regarded as 125nmol/L and Hollis
argues in http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096
Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: that we
should regard 100nmol/L as the safe minimum levels that ensures all
the body's systems can operate without being limited by lack of
substrate.
Any idea you can obtain OPTIMAL vitamin D status while wearing full
sunblock/clothing photoprotection is misguided.
Heaney shows in Effects of Above Average Summer Sun Exposure on Serum
25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Calcium Absorption
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/11/4952?ijkey=4c6193988d513e548c9972a8680cfecb6476a7bd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
that outdoor workers (Omaha) obtain only 2800iu/d vitamin D averaged
over the year and were thus insufficient during the Winter.
Safe non-burning regular limited full body sun exposure is the best
way of ensuring your bodies largest peripheral endocrine organ
functions as nature intended and manufactures the Vitamin D needed to
power those 51 tissue types and 200+ gene driven enzyme actions that
produce the anti inflammatory, anti cancer, and anti biotic functions
where and when they are needed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:21 am
|
|